2012 PLP 1069 (SCMR)
SURAYA BEGUM — Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 1069 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Khilji Arif Hussain and Tariq Parvez, JJ |
| Parties | SURAYA BEGUM — Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 1069 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 1069 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Khilji Arif Hussain and Tariq Parvez, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 1069 (SCMR) (SURAYA BEGUM — Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Siddique Baloch, Advocate Supreme Court with the Petitioner, her husband Abbas and son Almas (alleged abductee) for Petitioner.
- Jawwad Hassan, Additional A.-G., Punjab, Capt. (R) Amin Wains, RPO Gujranwala, Ahmed Nasir Aziz Virk, SSP, Imran Saleem, S.H.O. along with Almas, alleged abductee for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 15-2-2012 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No.26937 of 2011).
Ss. 365, 181 & 182
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person
Lodging of false complaint to settle civil dispute
Effect
Complainant (petitioner) in order to settle her civil dispute with her opponents in respect of a house, moved the machinery of law on a false pretext
False assertion had been made by the complainant (petitioner) before the police while lodging the F.I.R. under S.365, P.P.C., contending therein that her son was in illegal custody
Complainant made fabricated and concocted statements and sworn in false affidavits before the High Court and the Supreme Court
As soon as the complainant's opponents withdrew the execution application filed by them in pursuance of the civil court's decree and handed over the possession of the disputed property to the complainant, she and her husband within one hour produced the alleged abductee before the police, which fact was evident from the record as well as the report submitted by the police
Conduct of the complainant was illegal, which could not be left unnoticed
Police was directed to proceed against the complainant, who prima facie had lodged a false complaint
Case was sent to the High Court for proceedings against the complainant
Order accordingly. Muhammad Afzal v. The State 2001 SCMR 1615 ref.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has candidly admitted that prima facie a false assertion was made by the petitioner before the Police while lodging the F.I.R. No. 290 of 2008, under section 365, P.P.C., with Police Station City Kamoki, District Gujranwala. Similarly, fabricated and concocted statements have also been made by the complainant Mst. Surraya Begum before the High Court as well as before this Court, contending therein that her son namely Muhammad Almas is in illegal custody and he may be ordered to be recovered.
2. Facts and circumstances mentioned in our order dated 7-5-2012 fully support that the petitioner in order to settle her civil dispute with her opponents in respect of a house, moved the machinery of law on false pretext. Not only this, she also prima facie dared to sworn in false affidavits before the High Court and even before this Court. We have noticed that the Police did its best under the directions of the High Court as well as of this Court to effect the recovery of Muhammad Almas but ultimately the allegations made by the petitioner turns to be baseless and false as no sooner her opponents withdrew the execution application filed by them in pursuance of a civil Court's decree and handed over possession of two rooms of the house in dispute to the petitioner, she or her husband Abbas within one hour produced the abductee Muhammad Almas before the Police as this fact is evident from perusal of the record including the report submitted by the police. The conduct on the part of the petitioner is highly illegal, therefore, her such action cannot be left unnoticed. We do appreciate the conduct of the RPO Gujranwala i.e. Capt. Amin Wains and the members of his team in solving the mystery of this case. However, we directed the police to proceed against the complainant Mst. Surraya Begum, who prima facie seems to have lodged a false complaint. At the same time, we send this case to the learned High Court for proceeding against the complainant Mst. Surraya Begum so it may serve as deterrent for like minded persons, keeping in view the judgment of this Court in the case of Muhammad Afzal v. The State (2001 SCMR 1615). Needless to observe that the Court before whom the police shall lodge proceedings against the petitioner/complainant Mst. Surraya Begum or anyone else, who is responsible for filing false/fabricated/concocted affidavits/statements before this Court or High Court in this matter, shall dispose of such proceedings within a period of thirty days, after receipt hereof and a compliance report in this regard be sent to the Registrar of this Court for our perusal in Chambers. This petition stands disposed of in above terms. M.W.A./S-12/SC Order accordingly.