1998 PLP 276 (MLD)

Now, according to petitioners' counsel, this Court has inherent powers in the proper cases to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C. or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Since the case has not been challaned in the Court, therefore, no question of the abuse of the process of Court arises. However, the present case falls within the scope of clause "otherwise to secure the ends of justice.". "Since the usage of the word "or" before this clause keeps it disjunctive from the previous clause and is to be comprehended in a manner that it is to remain an independent provision which can be brought into operation in befitting cases in which only F.I.R. has been lodged and the case has not been challaned nor any one has been arrested or remanded by the Court of a Magistrate. I agree with this point of view but the petitioner in such cases has clearly to show that the ends of justice are really at stake and the same are to be secured. In the cases of the enforcement of Hudood decided by any criminal Court exclusive appellate and revisonal jurisdiction is conferred on this Court under the provisions of sub‑Article (1) of Article 203 DD of the Constitution of Pakistan and under sub‑Article (3) of the said Article such other jurisdiction is conferred on it by, inter alia section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. read with section 20 of the said Ordinance as discussed above. Consequently, I hold that this Court is seized of the jurisdiction of the quashment of such F.I.R., which is clearly lodged under any ordinance for enforcement of Hudood and in which none is arrested, no reference has made to any criminal Court and the investigation by police has been initiated. With this view both the learned counsel for respondents and State also agree.

5. Now comes the turn of a tentative assessment of the conduct of the complainant Shukran Bibi. In the matter under consideration namely F.I.R. No. 123 of 1996 Serial No.015862 lodged on 18‑7‑1996 at Police Station Fateh Sher, District Sahiwal the lady is showing her full name in column No.2 to be Shukran Bibi d/o Shakir Ali by caste Qureshi. She is disclosing her residential address in the beginning as well as final end of the body of F. I. R. to be Purani Bakra Mandi, Sahiwal falling within the ambit of Police Station Fateh Jang. The attested copies of various F.I.Rs. registered against one Sughran Bibi w/o Muhammad Ramzan caste Qureshi residence of 90/9‑L Muslim Town brought on the record by the petitioners do speak a lot about the conduct of Sughran Bibi. For example, relevant portion of F.I.R. No.328 of 1994, dated 16‑12‑1994 Police Station Ghalla Mandi, District Sahiwal registered under section 294, P.P.C. reads: It is clear from this F.I.R. that the husband of Sughran Bibi is Muhammad Ramzan. This Muhammad Ramzan disclosed as a complainant in another F.I.R. No.5 of 1991 Police Station Civil Lines, Sahiwal registered under section 16 of the said Ordinance that Sughran Bibi d/o Shakir Ali is Shukran Bibi. Relevant para. of the said F.I.R. reads: A copy of suit for dissolution of marriage filed in the Court of Senior Civil and Family Judge, Sahiwal brought on the file indicates plaintiff's full name and address to be Sughran Bibi alias Shukran Bibi /o Shakir Ali, caste Qureshi r/o Muslim Town, Sahiwal. The defendant husband's name and address is shown to be Muhammad Ramzan s/o Nazir Ahmed, Caste Jat r/o Chak No.82/612, Tehsil and District Sahiwal. The power of attorney, dated 5‑9‑1996 is thumb‑marked as Sughran alias Shukran. In her application for anticipatory bail before arrest filed in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Sahiwal in the abovementioned F.I.R. No.5 of 1996 under section 16 of the said Ordinance at Police Station Civil Lines, Sahiwal the lady Sughran Bibi is not saying that Shukran Bibi is a different person. On the contrary she is signing as Sughran Bibi alias Shukran. When confronted with these documents the learned counsel for respondents and State admitted that it is correct that another name of Shukran Bibi d/o Shakir Ali Qureshi is Sughran Bibi as well and that she is wife of Muhammad Ramzan s/c Nazir Ahmed Jat of Muslim Town, Sahiwal. Once so, then it is clear that the address of the spouse of complainant Shukran Bibi alias Sughran Bibi is Chak No.82/612, Tehsil Sahiwal and father's address is Muslim Town Sahiwal as shown by her in the suit for dissolution of marriage thumb‑marked on 4‑9‑1996. It appears that at the time of her alleged abduction i.e., on 12‑7‑1996 she was not at good terms with her spouse and was residing, naturally, with her father at Muslim Town, Sahiwal who has also been shown as witness No.2 in the schedule of witnesses attached with the memo. of the dissolution of marriage Mysteriously enough, then is her conduct transpiring from the present F.I.R., that firstly she is not disclosing her another name Sughran Bibi, secondly she is not showing her normal residential address of Muslim Town being with her father at the relevant time and disclosed by her on 13‑2‑1996 in the application for bail before arrest and on 4‑9‑1996 in the memo. for dissolution of marriage, thirdly she is concealing her marital status. In view of this background, comes into picture an affidavit sworn in by Muhammad Ramzan, husband of the complainant, before Oath Commissioner Sahiwal on 21‑10‑1996 and then the deponent himself appeared in the open Court and stated that he is the deponent and author of the said affidavit. I saw his original NIC No.334‑89‑115738 and brought on the record photocopy of the same. I am satisfied that the deponent has attended this Court and has proved the existence of this affidavit. It reads: Alongwith this affidavit has been filed copy of Nikahnama which indicates that the marriage was performed on 29‑6‑1992. When confronted with this affidavit, the counsel for respondent and State contended that since the complainant was seeking divorce and was not on good terms with the deponent and since she was not ready to succumb to illegal demands of the deponent as is evident from the memo. for dissolution of marriage, therefore, he was authoring wrong and misleading affidavits and was registering vexatious complaints/F.I.Rs. against her. Be it as it may, but there are other clear documents reaching up to the roots of the present case and demolishing the allegations in the present F.I.R., under consideration.

6. An application in original signed by as many as 15 persons on 28‑12‑1996 before Agha Niaz Ali Qazilbash, Lumberdar 90/9‑L, Sahiwal has been brought on the record by the petitioners. The applicants claim to be the residents of Muslim Town, Sahiwal and thus neighbours of Shukran Bibi. It reads: When confronted with this document, the counsel for respondents and State vehemently argued that it was an application arranged by the inimical husband of Shukran alias Sughran Bibi. Be it as it may, but there are other documents for which the said counsel have no reply.

7. In the body of F. I. R., which has been sought to be quashed, one of the culprits has been shown as Munir Ahmed s/o unknown r/o Islamabad. It turns out that he is petitioner No.3 and his father's name is Muhammad Shafi. It transpires from an irrefutable record submitted by the petitioners that this alleged culprit is in fact a Police Constable No. 1275 of Islamabad Police. Since he was got involved in the F.I.R. under consideration, a departmental enquiry was held by the senior Superintendent of Police, Islamabad which culminated into his exoneration from the charges. Relevant portion of a letter, dated 3‑9‑1996 written by S.S.P., Islamabad reads:‑‑ "Enclosed. Please find herewith a self‑explanatory application submitted by Constable Munir Hussain No. 1275 of Islamabad Police, presently serving at P.S. Industrial Area, Islamabad for necessary action. He appeared before the undersigned in the Orderly room on I‑9‑1996 and stated that a case F.I.R. No. 123 of 1996, dated 12‑7‑1996 under section 10/16 and 7/79, Hadd Ordinance, Police Station Fateh Sher, District Sahiwal had been got registered by Mst. Shukran Bibi. The applicant lady has falsely implicated him in the said case, perhaps on the investigation of one Shafiq‑ur‑Rehman r/o Sahiwal which was arrested by him at Islamabad on 23‑6‑1996 from the same house, mentioned in the F.I.R. He further disclosed that a pistol .22 bore with 15 cartridges (unlicensed) was also recovered by him. He produced a photocopy of Daily Diary No.33, dated 23‑6‑1996 of Police Station Industrial Area, Islamabad it; support of his contention which is enclosed alongwith his application." The documents which prove alibi of this alleged offender are the attested copies of daily diary and Report No. 17, dated 12‑7‑1996. These indicate that Munir Husain Constable No.1275 was on patrol duty on 12‑7‑1996 at 'police station Industrial Area, Islamabad and he left Police Station at 3‑30 p.m., was on duty between 4 p.m. to 12‑00 hours night. On 13‑7‑1996 he left the police station at 11‑25 p.m. and was on duty from 12‑00 hours to 8 a.m. In what was then he was available at a distant place like Sahiwal on 12‑7‑1996 at Maghrib Wela i.e., sun set tune to abduct a married lady and bring her to Islamabad to commit repeated rapes upon her. The mystery is that how did the complainant allege victim come to know name immediately after getting a chance to escape and give the name in F.I.R., whereas normally under such circumstances names are not disclosed by unknown offenders to the victim. When confronted with these documents, the counsel for respondents and State stated at Bar that Munir Ahmed was not one of those who abducted Shukran Bibi from Sahiwal, and then even if this piece of F.I.R., is not believed yet the chaff is to be sifted from grain and the maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" is a maxim discarded long ago by the superior Courts of Pakistan.

8. The question is as to how then this police constable of Islamabad Munir Ahmed has been involved in this heinous crime? The question is replied by yet another document brought on the record by the petitioners. It is attested true copy of Report No.33, dated 23‑6‑1996 of daily diary Police Station Industrial Area and is to the effect that respondent No.3 (Shafiqur Rehman Butt) came from Sahiwal to the residence of petitioner No.l (Mst. Shirin Mazhar) and due to some fight with her was arrested by Police Constable Munir Ahmed (Petitioner No.3), brought to the police station and from him some pistol of .22 bore was also recovered. This report indicates some sort of dispute existing between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3, but does not prove as to in what manner respondent No.3 is connected with respondent No.4 (Shukran Bibi) although both of them come from Sahiwal. Respondent No.3 (Shafiqur Rehman Butt) is, prima facie, involved in many criminal cases at Sahiwal. F.I.R. No.14 of 1997 registered on 28‑1‑1997 @ Police Station Fateh Sher, Sahiwal is lodged by Noor Muhammad, Advocate of Sahiwal under sections 148, 149, 324 and 452, P.P.C., in which this respondent is, inter alia, nominated and his specific role has been shown to have fired at the complainant advocate and to have threatened him of murder. Another F.I.R. No.222 of 1995 Police Station Civil Lines, Sahiwal nominates this same respondent who is resident of Karbala Road, Sahiwal in offences under sections 337‑A (ii), 337‑F (i), 337‑A (i)/34, P.P.C. Another F.I.R., nominating this respondent is numbered 3/97 Police Station Civil Lines, Sahiwal under section 506., P.P.C. The complainant in the said F.I.R., is yet another advocate of Sahiwal namely Bilal Saeed Jan. Another F.I.R. No.291 of 1991 Police Station Civil Lines Sahiwal brought on the record is about an offence committed under section 10(2) of the said Ordinance by this very respondent and many other named persons. The link between the respondents Nos.3 and 4 and their common intention to use respondent No.2 as a tool to lodge the F.I.R., under consideration is that both of them are from Sahiwal, are indulging into nefarions activities of harassment and blackmail and their conduct on the whole is not free from stigmas.

9. In the F.I.R. sought for quashment is appearing active role of one Asif Ali s/o Mulazim Husain. A Nikahnama brought on the file proves that the father of this petitioner No.2 married petitioner No.1 on 30‑7‑1974. It means that petitioners Nos.l and 2 are mother and son, inter se. This Nikahnama indicates that at the time of performance of this Nikah, petitioner No. 1 was residing with her father at Karbala Road, Sahiwal. This is exactly the residential neighbourhood of respondent No.3 (Shafiqur Rehman Butt). A certificate issued by the Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Islamabad indicates that petitioner No.(2) Asif Ali is a student at the college level and the address of his residence is that of the residence of his mother, the petitioner No.

1. Now the allegations levelled against an educated mother and her young student son is that they abducted a married lady Shukran Bibi, already involved in heinous crimes of Zina, black‑mail etc., at Sahiwal, brought her at point of mausers to their bunglow situated at I‑10/1, Islamabad and committed repeated rapes on her. It appears to be the most unnatural phenomenon that a mother can permit her young student son to commit rapes upon a married and elderly lady brought by abduction from Sahiwal and then she (the mother) shall remain an active accomplice with her son. But if at all such an oddity occurs, then such type of culprits are barbarians by nature and shall leave no avenue for the victim to come out of captivity so easily only put the culprits into the danger of being arrested and convicted finally for life imprisonment or so. The entire story related in F.I.R., appears to be a concession specially when the complainant has concealed important facts of being a married lady and the relationship of two active accomplices to be that of mother‑son and has not come with clean hands.

10. There are yet other pieces of evidence/record which prove beyond reasonable doubt that the F.I.R. is a complete falsity. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, I.A. circle Islamabad in his enquiry report to the S.S.P., Islamabad reported that in spite of calls complainant Shukran Bibi (respondent No.4) did not appear nor any of the witnesses, whereas petitioners (accused) were present and proved their innocence through documentary evidence. It is further reported by him that Shukran Bibi has declared herself as a widow in the complaint whereas her husband Muhammad Ramzan is alive. Again it is surprising that since alleged rapes were committed upon her at Islamabad, her natural conduct should have been to appear at police station at Islamabad after liberty and immediately. But she chose to proceed to Sahiwal and delayed complaint even there by 3 days. There are two affidavits brought on the records sworn in by Muhammad Amjad and Saeed Ahmed before Sadaqat Ali Chaudhri, Oath Commissioner/Advocate District Courts, Sahiwal and are to the effect that on 13‑7‑1996 Shukran Bibi met them at Karbala Road, Sahiwal and requested them that they may try for reconciliation with her spouse Muhammad Ramzan. These affidavits are falsifying the story of F.LR., which indicates that on 13‑7‑1996 Shukran Bibi was in captivity at Islamabad.

11. It appears from the record that there are pending civil litigations about inherited properties situated at Sahiwal and elsewhere between petitioner No. 1 and her real uncles Syed Kazim Bukhari, Syed Zulfiqar Ali Shah and aunt Mst. Nasreen Shugufta and one Ghulam Malik. A copy of a memo. of suit filed on 19‑9‑1994 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sahiwal plaintiff being petitioner No. 1 is on the file. Relevant paras. Nos.3 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the said suit read:

12. In the presence of strong evidence of enmities and litigations regarding valuable immovable properties at Sahiwal and elsewhere and the criminal records of respondents Nos.3 and 4 at Sahiwal and the conduct of complainant Shukran Bibi, I have come to the conclusion that the F.I.R. under consideration is frivolous and vexatious and to secure the ends of justice, the said F.I.R. No. 123 of 1996 lodged on 18‑7‑1996 at Police Station Fateh Sher, Sahiwal is declared to be void in law and is quashed accordingly. The petitioners are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. N.H.Q./1143/FSC F.I.R. quashed.