Constitution Petition No.D-2016 of 2012
Date Order with signature of the Judge
1. For Katcha Peshi.
2. For hearing of MA No.11633/2012.
------------------------------------------------
Mr. M. Ishaq Ali, Advocate for Petitioners along with Petitioners No.1, 3, and 4.
Mr. Sher Mohammad K. Sheikh, Addl. Advocate General Sindh along with Complainant Syed Amjad Ali Gilani.
Mr. Abrar Ali Khitchi, Assistant Prosecutor General Sindh.
-------------
Petitioners seek quashment of Crime No.101/2012 under Sections 392, 365/34, PPC of Police Station Shershah. Notices accordingly were issued and the comments accordingly have been filed. Investigating Officer as well as respondent No.7, who is complainant of the instant crime and father of petitioner No.4 alleged abductee, is also in attendance.
The alleged abductee i.e. petitioner No.4 has very categorically stated before us that she was never abducted by anyone on the contrary petitioner No.3 (now her husband) was running a shop in front of her house and that she had an affair with him but since in her family there is no concept of marriage out of family, therefore, she planned and fled with petitioner No.3 voluntarily and, thereafter, she got married. She further states that she married petitioner No.3 on 21.4.2012 and she is pregnant of approximately five months and prays that the proceedings emanating from Crime No.101/2012 which has been falsely instituted by her father complaining her abduction at the hands of her husband and other relatives may be quashed.
Counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out that after the petitioner No.4 had left the house of complainant in the early hours on 21.4.2012 and had married petitioner No.3 the complainant immediately on 22.4.2012 has lodged a report with police station Shershah on the ground that some people from his neighbourhood had come to ask for the hands of her daughter i.e. petitioner No.4 on 22.4.2012, but since they do not marry outside family, therefore, the proposal was refused and on the same night they (other petitioners) lured his daughter and kidnapped her with the intention of committing zina and that he apprehends that the life of his daughter is in danger. Per counsel, complainant stated nothing that the petitioners have forcefully entered the house of complainant and that they forcefully dragged his daughter out and further that any golden ornaments or cash were looted on gunpoint or that she was previously given in nikah to her cousin as has been stated in the FIR, which was lodged on 11.5.2012 for the incident dated 21.4.2012 which proves that FIR was afterthought false and liable to be quashed. We had called the officer from Shershah Police Station who had received such complaint and the official stated before us that such complaint was made by the complainant which was received by him and was duly entered in register. Consequently, we asked the I.O. as to why such complaint was not taken into consideration, he says that such complaint was not handed over to him and if he would have received such complaint he definitely would not have challaned the petitioners and would have recommended the disposal of case in ‘B’ class.
We feeling the sensitivity of the case and the anguish and pain which was expressed by the complainant/father allowed him a detailed and exclusive meeting with the petitioner No.4 in our chamber and tried to facilitate a compromise. After detailed meeting petitioner No.4 reiterated her stance and stated that nobody had come to their house nor a dacoity was committed infact she had fled away with petitioner No.3 in the early hours of 21.4.2012 and that she wants to maintain her cordial relation with her parents as she has utmost respect and love for them but now when she has married petitioner No.3 and is pregnant the complainant should respect such relation.
On the other hand, the complainant says that he is ready to settled the dispute in case her daughter Sidra Shahbaz after delivery of new born obtains divorce from her husband, rejoin him and also gives up the custody of newly born in favour of her husband, as according to him, this child was conceived before her marriage. He says that if petitioners meet conditions he would accept petitioner No.4 wholeheartedly and would provide her all comforts of life. He further says that the husband of petitioner No.4 is not a good match for her daughter, as neither his social or financial status matches that of complainant. He has further expressed that on account of petitioner marrying in such manner he is facing pressure and disgrace from the family and also facing problems in finding match for her elder daughter. Though, in our opinion on such condition a compromise is not possible, however, in order to provide time and opportunity for settlement we adjourn the hearing of this matter to 17.10.2012, to be taken up at 1pm, on which date this petition shall be heard and finally decided. At joint request the proceedings of Sessions Case in Crime No.101/2012 under Sections 392, 365, 34, PPC till next date of hearing are hereby stayed. Let copy of this order be faxed to the District Judge, Karachi West for compliance.
JUDGE
JUDGE