Const. Petition No.D-1303 of 2012

Date                            Order with signature of the Judge

1. For order on office objection.

2. For Katcha Peshi.

3. For hearing of CMA No.7769/2012.

4. For hearing of CMA No.7770/2012.

(Notice issued to respondents)

--------------------------------------------------

 
8th August, 2012

 

Mr. Raham Ali Rind, Advocate for Petitioners along with Petitioner No.1 Mussarat Khatoon.

Mr. Sher Muhammad Shaikh, Addl. A.G. along with IO/SI Manzoor Ahmed Bhatti of PS Dhamrah District Larkana.

Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate for Respondents No.2&3.

                             -------------

                        In consequent to the directions of this Court petitioner No.1 Mst. Mussarat Khatoon has been produced. She was allowed detailed meeting with her mother Mst. Seema who was also present and both the petitioner and Mst.  Seema were identified by their counsel. After detailed meeting petitioner No. 1 says that she is living with respondent No.3 at her own freewill. Counsel for respondents No. 2 &3 admit this position that when the petitioner left the abode of respondents No. 2&3 Crime No. 10 of 2012 under Section 380, 337-J PPC of PS Dhamarah district Larkana was lodged perhaps with the sole intent to coerce the petitioner to join back her husband and father in law. It is further disclosed by both the learned counsel that the father of the petitioner also lodged Crime No. 269 of 2012 under Section 365, 395, 512 PPC at PS Shah Latif Town against respondent No. 2. All present say that since the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled, therefore, proceedings in both the Crimes may be quashed, However, since notice to the prosecution in respect of Crime No. 269/2012 has not been issued, therefore, in the interest of justice we adjourn hearing of this petition to 29.08.2012 with the direction to IO of the Crime No. 269/2012 of PS Shah Latif Town to appear in this Court alongwith all record.  The presence of the IO of PS Dhamrah District Larkana is dispensed with. Counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 says that since the petitioner No.1 is living with respondent No.3&4, therefore, he will ensure the presence of the petitioner on the next date of hearing.

 

JUDGE

 

 

JUDGE