ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT,

HYDERABAD.

C. P. No. D — 988 of 2016.

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

31.01.2017.

FOR ORDERS ON OFFICE OBJECTIONS.

FOR KATCHA PESHI.

Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro, A.G. Sindh.

------

Petitioners and their counsel are not in attendance. It appears that petitioners filed the petition and prayed for the following reliefs:-

a). That this Honourable Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 7 not to harass the petitioners at the behest of respondent No.8 to 17 in any form or manifestation and treat them like respectable citizens as guaranteed in the constitution of Islamic republic of Pakistan.

b). That this Honourable Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to provide the legal protection of life, honour, prestige and property to the petitioners so also their relatives and well wisher from the cruel clutches of the respondents No.8 to 17.

c). that this Honourable court may kindly be pleased to declare that the act of respondents No.8 to 17 declaring the petitioners as KARO KARI (honour killing) as illegal, unlawful against the teaching of Islam.

d). That this Honourable Court may kindly be pleased to quash the F.I.R. which is falsely lodged by the respondent No.8 against the petitioner No.2 and his relativfes. F.I.R. bearing Crime No.41 of 2016 P.S. B Section Dadu under section 365-B, 496-A, 506/2 PPC dated 19.11.2016.

Notices were issued to the respondents A.A.G. Syed Meeral Shah Bukhari learned D.P.G. present in the court in other cases waives the notice. Learned D.P.G. pointed out that respondent No.4 / D.S.P. Dadu has filed the comments in which it is mentioned that F.I.R. bearing crime No.41 of 2016, of Police Station ‘B’ Section Dadu was registered regarding the abduction of Mst.Saima the petitioner No.1. It is further submitted that Mst. Saima appeared before Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate Dadu, where her 164 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded in which she has categorically stated that she has neither been abducted nor compelled to marry with petitioner No.2. Thereafter, the case registered against her husband was disposed of in ‘C’ class.

In the view of above, it appears that the purpose of filing the instant Constitution Petition has been achieved, therefore, the same is accordingly disposed of with direction to the official respondents that they shall provide protection to the petitioners in accordance with law.

JUDGE