Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 73 of 1970, decided on 17th April 1970.
S. 344‑Wrongful confinement--Principal witness having made a statement that she was not being illegally confined by her mother (accused)‑Continuance of criminal proceedings against accused on charge of wrongful confinement, in circumstances, held, abuse of process of Court‑Proceedings under S. 344, P. P. C. as against applicant accused as also against non- applicant accused quashed‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898). S.561‑A.
Parbati Devi v. State A I R 1952 Cal. 835 and Bikaru and others v. Emperor A I R 1948 Oudh 17 fol.
Applicant in person.
Respondent No. 1 in person.
Manzoor Hussain for the State.
Date of hearing : 17th April 1970.
The applicant has applied to this Court under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. for the quashment of the case pending against her and four other persons in the Court of Mr. A. D. Ansari, Additional City Magistrate, Karachi, under section 344, P. P. C.
2. It appears from the record of the case that respondent No. 1 filed a complaint in the Court of the Additional City Magistrate on 27th December 1969, in which he accused the applicant and the other persons of removing his wife. Mst. Shahnaz Begum, from his house and confining her in their house against her will. The applicant is the mother of Mst. Shahnaz Begum while the three other accused, namely Jalil, Jamil and Muhammad Jan are her sons and daughter. Haji, the fifth accused, is described as a landlord in the complaint. It was also alleged in the complaint that Mst. Shabnaz Begum was married to respondent No. 1 on 3rd November 1969 after she had obtained an order upon her application dated 16th August 1969 that she was free to exercise her free will as she was major. Upon this complaint, the learned Additional City Magistrate examined respondent No. 1 and two other witnesses, namely Ashfaq and Abbas, under section 200, Cr. P. C. and thereupon took cognizance of the offence under section 344, P. P. C. on 1st January 1970. He also ordered for the issuance of a warrant under section 100, Cr. P. C. for securing the custody of Mst. Shahnaz Begum from the applicant. Mst. Shahnaz Begum was secured and produced in Court. On 3rd January 1970, respondent No. 1 made an application that she be lodged in Darul Aman as she was under the influence of her mother. The learned Additional City Magistrate then directed that she be kept in Darul Aman and produced in Court on 9th January 1970. The applicant thereupon filed an application (No. 4/70) in the High Court, in which she prayed that her daughter. Mst. Shahnaz Begum, was being unlawfully detained in Darul Aman and that she be set at liberty. This petition was admitted on 6th January 1970 and Mst. Shahnaz Begum was ordered to be produced in Court. Her statement was recorded on 12th January 1970 and she stated that she was not unlawfully confined in the house of her mother and expressed her desire to live with her mother. Before her statement was recorded she was medically examined and, according to the opinion of the doctor she was aged about 18 years. She was thereupon set at liberty by order dated 12th January 1970. The applicant has now filed the above application for the quashment of the case pending against her in the Court of the Additional City Magistrate, Karachi.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the State, the applicant and the respondent No. 1, who are present in‑person. It is clear that the complaint was based upon the allegation that Mst. Shahnaz Begum was being wrongfully confined in the house of the applicant who is her mother. The fate of the case depends upon the evidence of Mst. Shahnaz Begum as she is the principal witness in the case. In view of the fact that she has not supported the case of respondent No. 1 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 4 of 1970 it will not be possible to sustain the accusation made against the applicant and the others. There is, therefore, no point in allowing the proceedings to continue any further. Mr. Manzoor Husain, the learned counsel for the State, has also conceded that the case suffers from this defect and the continu ance of the proceedings will amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
4. For the reasons given above I would quash the proceedings of the above case pending against the applicant in the Court of the Additional City Magistrate, Karachi. The other accused are not applicants before me their case also stands on the same footing. I would on the view as expressed in Parbatt Devi v. State (A I R 1952 Cal. 835) and Bikaru and others v. Emperor (A I R 1948 Oudh 17) with which I agree, also quash the proceedings against them though they have not applied for the quashment of proceedings. The petition is accordingly accepted.
Petition accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer