1975 P Cr (PLP)

S. 491‑Habeas corpus‑Repeated processes issued for recovery of detenu‑Neither found at given address nor further whereabouts known to petitioner‑Petition, held, infructuous in circumstances. Maroof Ali Khan for the Applicant. The petitioner's own case is that he performed the marriage ceremony of his daughter Mst. Gulbibi with Syed Jindal Shah respondent No. 1 on 28th August, 1971; he has however asserted in his petition under section 491, Cr. P. C. that before the marriage the respondent Syed Gindal Shah had made the petitioner believe on Holy Quran, that he was a bachelor and had no children but after the Rukhsati ceremony, it transpired that the respon dent was not only a married man but he also had several children from the previous marriage; and that "he had married her (petitioner's daughter) just to retain her as his maid servant and a keep." The petitioner has asserted that his daughter filed a suit for dissolution of marriage, being Family Suit No. 12 of 1972, in the Court of Family Judge, Sukkur, but before the date of hearing fixed for 25th February, 1972, his daughter was forcibly taken away from his house and produced before Abdullah Ansari, Mukhtiarkar and F. C. M., Pano Akil, who in collusion with his son‑in‑law recorded a false statement of his daughter and allowed him to take her away by force and against her will, and since that day she has been under wrongful confinement. The petitioner then filed a complaint under section 220/342/506 and 120‑B of Pakistan Penal Code against his son‑in‑law and 3 others namely Abdullah Ansari, Mukhtiarkar and F. C. M. Pano Akil, Abdul Rashid S. H. O. and Muhammad Ayoob Assistant Sub‑Inspector of Police, Pano Akil. The complaint was registered as Case No. 4 of 1972, but it was dismissed under section 203, Cr. P. C. on 27th March 1973. It was with this factual background that the petitioner approached this Court for relief under section 491, Cr. P. C. praying that his daughter be set at liberty from the wrongful confinement. The processes issued by this Court for the production of the alleged detenu have returned with the reports that neither the alleged detenu nor her husband are available at the address mentioned by the petitioner. We called upon the learned counsel for the petitioner how it would be legitimate for this Court to keep these proceedings alive when the petitioner is not aware of the place where his daughter is said to be wrongfully confined, or where she can be found. All that was stated in reply was the assertion made in the petition that the petitioner "believes that his daughter Mst. Gul Bibi is under wrongful confinement and is being either tortured or has been murdered by the respondent No. 1." This allegation was made as long ago as the 26thApril, 1973, when this petition was filed. If the petitioner suspected commission of murder of his daughter, he should have at once reported the crime rather than approached this Court through this petition under section 491, Cr. P. C. He did not even care to challenge the order of dismissal of the complaint filed by him against the respondents. In the circumstances that the alleged detenu in spite of the repeated processes issued by this Court has not been found at the address given by the petitioner and he has no further information of her where‑about, this criminal miscellaneous application has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.