MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01CED244.23E4CF50" This document is a Single File Web Page, also known as a Web Archive file. If you are seeing this message, your browser or editor doesn't support Web Archive files. Please download a browser that supports Web Archive, such as Windows® Internet Explorer®. ------=_NextPart_01CED244.23E4CF50 Content-Location: file:///C:/E32A1C63/C.P.NO.D-1528of2013AC.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
ORDER SHEE=
T
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD
C.P No.D-1528 of 2013
DATE =
&nb=
sp; ORDER
WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
=
FOR KATCHA
PESHI.
23.10.2013.
Mr. Khait Kumar Khatri, advoc=
ate for
the petitioners along with petitioners.
Mr. Allah
Bachayo Soomro Additional Advocate General Sindh along with ASI Manzoor Mangwar P.S A.Section Nawabshah, Gul Muhammad Siyal I/O Cr=
ime
No.52 of 2012 and ASI Sher Muhammad I/O Crime
No.193/2012 PS Kandiaro.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; ………=
;
&n=
bsp;  =
; &n=
bsp;
Case=
of
the petitioner is that petitioner Mst Waheedan left the house of her parents and being sui =
juris, contracted marriage with =
petittioner
No.2 on 14.02.2012; on account of this marriage parents of petittioner
No.1 were enraged , thus they booked petittioner
No.2, and his family members in two false F.I.R(s) No. 52/2012, under secti=
on
395 PPC at P.S. Kandiaro and F.I.R No. 193/2012,
under section 365-B, 363 PPC at P.S Kandiaro;both
F.I.R(S) are false and registered with malafide
intention.
2.
=
Respondents
have contended that F.I.R bearing crime No.52/2012, relates to the robbery =
of
gold ordainments, having worth of Rs.35000/-, investigation was carried out;
charge sheet was submitted under section 512 Cr.P.C.; whereas F.I.R No.
193/2012, relates to the abduction of Petittioner Mst Waheedan; after usual
investigation, same is recommended under ‘A’ Class, as accused =
were
un-traceable.
3.
=
Learned
counsel for petitioners, inter alia, contended that both cases are f=
alse
as they relates to same police station, in first case report was registered=
on
14.2.2012, whereas date of offence is not mentioned in relevant column of
F.I.R; complainant himself was not sure about date of offence; father and t=
wo
brothers of petittioner No.2, were booked with
ulterior motive in instant case; whereas in 2nd F.I.R, it is all=
eged
that same person Nawab, Us=
man
and Luqman, who were involved in first crime, a=
lso
abducted petitioner; which is enough to prove that both F.I.R(s) are false =
and
liable to be quashed.
4.
=
Conversely,
learned AAG, did not controvert the factual aspect and half-heartedly oppos=
ed
the prayer of petittioners.
5.
=
After
meticulous examination of available record, it is surfaced that in both
F.I.R(s) set of accused is almost same; candidly, peti=
ttioner
No.1, who is present court, categorically states that she has contracted
marriage on her free will, cases are false; none=
has
abducted her. She also states that there is likelihood that complainant may
cause harm to the petitioners on the pretext of ‘KARO KARI’.
6. =
It
is revealed that the&n=
bsp;
FIR of the case crime of Section 395 PPC has been lodged after
the date of the marriage between petitioners, which also goes to suggest th=
at
it was after acquiring knowledge of marriage between petitioner. Since the =
law
of the land and Shari’a do not restrict t=
wo
sui-juris souls to marry with each other even w=
ithout
consent of their blood-relation. Since the Court (s), at number of occasion=
s,
have declared false, cases lodged by blood-relation having acquired knowled=
ge
about such lawful act of two sui-juris therefor=
e,
this trend has developed to implicate the family members in case with the
allegation of other offences. The FIR of alleged dacoi=
ty
against same set of persons after date of marriage of petitioners also smel=
l to
be result of maneuver, particularly when set of accused is same who are nam=
ed
in subsequently lodged FIR of abduction to which the abductee from her
statement has made baseless and false. Thus it prima facie appears that both
cases are motivated and lodged with ulterior motive, star witness negates t=
he
version of complainant party hence, further trial will not serve any purpos=
e,
except harassment to the petitioner party which is not the object of the Sa=
fe
Criminal Administration of Justice.
7.
=
Thus,
by short order 22-10-2013 both aforesaid F.I.R(s) alongwith their proceedin=
gs, were
quashed.
&=
nbsp; Petition
stands disposed of.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; JUDGE
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; JUDGE
AC
|