ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

C.P.No.D-  400 of  2010

DATE         ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For Katcha Peshi.

21-04-2010

Mr. Sajjad Ahmed Chandio, Advocate a/w petitioners.

Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro, Additional A.G a/w SIO PS Tando Bago, files comments on behalf of respondent No.2.

                                                            =

                        Through instant petition, the petitioners sought quashment of F.I.R. in crime No.18/2010 registered at Police Station Tando Bago District Badin U/s 365-B, 496-A, 380, 35, 457 P.P.C.

The petitioner No.1 present in Court states that neither she has been abducted by any one nor she was earlier married as alleged in the instant F.I.R. She states that she being a sui-juris and out of her own free will, has entered into contract of marriage with petitioner No.2 namely Abid Hussain son of Muhammad Hussain on which the respondent No.1 Muhammad Hassain, the father of petitioner No.1 got annoyed and registered a false F.I.R. against the petitioner No.2 and her relatives. The I.O present has recorded the statement of petitioner in which she has narrated the same facts. Respondent No.1 is also present in Court and states that he has forgiven her daughter and shall not cause any harassment to the petitioners, if her husband the petitioner No.2, allow her to meet him. Petitioner No. 2 present has undertaken that he will not stop the petitioner No.1 from meeting her father.

                        Under the circumstances, Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro, the learned Additional A.G. does not support the F.I.R. We are also of the view that since the main allegation of abduction on the basis of which FIR was registered has proven false, no successful prosecution of the said crime can take place and the trial would be an exercise in futility. We therefore quash the proceedings culminating from Crime No.18/2010 of P.S Tando Bago. The petitioner No.1 is at liberty to go wherever she likes.

At this stage, the petitioner No.2 has pointed out that during raid on his house, the respondents No.2 and 3 forcibly took away some articles and cash belonging to him and requests that I.O may be directed to return the same. The I.O present states that tractor and the motorcycle were taken under section 550 Cr.P.C. and in case the petitioner approaches the police station, the same shall be returned.

                        The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.  

JUDGE

                                                                                                                JUDGE