1988 P Cr (PLP)

Naushad Shafquat for Respondents Nos. 3 to

6. S. Sarfraz Ahmed A.A.‑G. for the State. This criminal revision application arises out of the following facts. The applicant /complainant Farhan filed a complaint under sections 204, 420, 477/34, P.P. C . before the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) alleging therein that Mst. Najma is daughter of accused No.3, whereas accused Nos.4 and 5 are sons of accused No.3, while accused No.2 is brother‑in‑law of Najma. That on 25‑1‑1984, Mst. Farida and Mst. Najma were married with the complainant and his friend Nadeem respectively. The Nikah was performed by Qazi Islamuddin Dehlvi of Jilani Masjid, Garden, Karachi. That the Rukhsati of Farida took place whereas the Rukhsati of Najma could not take place due to the obstruction by accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 on the instigation accused No.2. That the copy of Nikahnama was misplaced and, therefore, the complainant contacted accused No.1 Sadiq Hussain for the copy of Nikahnama who told him that he has not registered the said Nikah, and he further told him that Nikah of Najma with Nadeem was also not registered with him. That the complainant approached Nikah Khawan, Qazi, Islamuddin Dehlvi who confirmed that he got both the Nikahnamas registered with accused No.1 as required under section 5(3) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. That since legal proceedings were going on, between Nadeem and accused Nos. 2 to 5, the complainant presumed that the accused did not favour the marriage between Nadeem and Najma, and, therefore, the accused got both the Nikahnamas removed from the public register so that the same may not be produced as evidence. The complainant, therefore, filed a direct complainant. His statement was recorded under section 200, Cr.P.C. and it was ordered that P.E. be held at the first instance. In P.E. Qazi Islamuddin Dehlvi, Sardar Zuber, Nisar Ahmed, Agha Rashid Ali, Abdul Latif, Mst. Farida Nadeem and Syed Islam Ahmed were examined. After considering the evidence, produced by the complainant before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he was pleased to dismiss the complaint on 3‑7‑1986, The present revision is directed against the said order. I have heard Mr. M.M. Kazi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Mr. Naushad Shafquat, learned counsel for the private respondents, Mr. S. Sarfraz Ahmad, A.A.‑G., appearing for the State, and have also gone through the evidence produced in P.E. and the impugned order. From the evidence, brought on record, it is clear that there is no evidence to show that the respondents Nos.3 to 6 were in any way responsible for getting the Nikahnama destroyed nor there is any evidence that respondents Nos.3 to 6 were in any way responsible for preventing the Nikah registrar from supplying copy to the complainant, therefore, sections 477 and 204, P.P.C. are not applicable to the facts of the present case. As far as section 420, P.P.C. is concerned, there is no evidence that any of the respondents induced the complainant or his friend Nadeem to: part with the said Nikahnama to them, and thereby cheated them in any way. I have perused the evidence led in P.E. and impugned order, I do not find any cogent reasons to interfere with the order which is perfectly legal under the circumstances of the case. The proceedings appear to be male fide and were filed in order to harass and pressurise the parents of Mst. Najma. The application is, therefore, dismissed in limine The above revision application was disposed of by me on 15‑3‑1987 by a short order and these are the reasons for the same. S.A./F‑33/K Dismissed in limine.