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
JUDGE
A.