Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 828 of 1973, heard on 3rd December 1973.

----‑S. 491‑Habeas corpus‑Petitioner taking up cause of alleged wife of his mureed without satisfactorily showing anything by way of proof of marriage, nor explaining how he was authorised to take up cause of alleged wrongful confinement‑Respondent producing prima facie proof of having entered into wedlock with girl and girl also shown to have made two statements in favour of respondent, giving direct he to petitioner's case‑District Magistrate also found to have recorded girl's statement and allowed her to go with respondent‑Not permissible, in circumstances, for High Court, in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction to interfere with District Magistrate's order and to make a probe into conflicting versions of parties, yet to be resolved under course of law going to follow consequent upon registra tion of case under Ss. 366, etc. P. P. C.

Habib‑ur‑Rashid for Petitioners.

S. Murtaza Hussain for the State.

Muhammad Hayat Junejo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 (absent).

Date of hearing : 3rd December 1973.

Mst. Khatoo, daughter of Loung Gaho aged about 22 years has been produced in Court today consequent to rule nisi issued at the instance of petitioner Muhammad Shah Syed, who claims to be "a spiritual leader of the peace", having large following of disciples. Mst. Khatoo, according to him, was married to one of his mureeds, Gul Muhammad son of Manoo Khan, about 1 years ago; later on the respon dents Muhammad Qasim and Abdullah who are the tapedars of the area and also influential zamindars, took fancy for Mst. Khatoo and abducted her sometime in May 1973. In this connection First Information Report was lodged by Gul Muhammad with Tando Muhammad Khan Police Station on 24th September 1973, under sections 366, P. P. C., 506, P. P. C. and section 13 of the Arms Ordinance. Three persons shown as accused in the Report, namely, Muhammad Qasim, Abdullah and one Janu were conse quently arrested but they were released on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad by the order dated 11th October 1973.

Muhammad Qasim respondent has filed Counter‑Affidavit in these proceedings in which he has affirmed that Mst. Khatoo is his legally wedded wife. In support of this assertion he has produced photostat copy of nikah‑nama of his marriage dated the 6th May 1973. He has also produced state ments of Mst. Khatoo recorded on two occasions the first time before the mukhtiarkar and First Class Magistrate, Hyderabad on 27‑9‑1973, and On the second occasion before the Additional District Magistrate, Hyderabad on 1st October 1973, in which she has confirmed having got married to Muhammad Qasim according to Shariat law. In her former statement Mst. Khatoo stated:‑--

"My father and mother had conspired to get me forcibly married t, one Gut Muhammad and they sought the services of Gull Muhammad's relations also in this respect so that I may remain in their house and earn for them by prostitution. About 4‑5 month, back, I have of my free will voluntarily and in full possession (4 my senses married Muhammad Kasim according to "Shariat".

She went on to add:‑--

"We are living together as husband and wife and I am leading a, honourable life with him. I know Abdullah and Jumo of who Abdullah is my brother‑in‑law. Neither of them has kidnapped me or misled me. Police is forcing me that I should make a false statement to them that I am wife of Gut Muhammad and that m husband Muhammad Qasim has abducted me, but this allegation is false. Gul Muhammad is a vagabond and he has filed a fall case at the instance of my father. I have never married Gul Muhammad."

On these facts, and yet another statement made by Mst. Khatoo before him the Additional District Magistrate, Hyderabad passed the following order on the 1st October 1973 :‑

"Mst. Khatoo has stated in her statement that she has not been kidnapped and wants to go to her husband Muhammad Qasim.

Accordingly she is set at liberty to go wherever she likes."

We questioned the learned counsel for the petitioner how it would be permissible for this Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under section 491, Cr. P. C. to interfere with the order passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Hyderabad dated the 1st October 1973, and also make a probe into the conflicting versions of the parties which are yet to be resolved under the course of law that is to follow consequent to the registration of the crime under sections 366, 506, P. P. C. etc. The learned e counsel urged in reply that the petitioner only seeks relief in regard to the wrongful detention of Mst. Khatoo. In this behalf he pointed out the asser tion made in the petition that during the course of investigation "fictitious lady was produced before police, who‑stated before the police that she is not the wife of Gut Muhammad and she is the wife of Qasim respondent No. 2".

On the facts that have been disclosed on the record now before us, we are clearly of the opinion that this is not at all a fit case for exercise of powers possessed by this Court under section 491, Cr. P. C. The petitioner has taken up the cause of the alleged wife of his mureed without even satis factorily showing anything by way of proof of the marriage. He has not even explained how, if at all, he is authorised to take up the cause of the alleged wrongful confinement of Mst. Khatoo, for whose benefit these pro ceedings are manifestly initiated. He has not even claimed to have been present when the alleged "fictitious girl was produced before the police". On the other hand, it has been shown on behalf of the respondent Muhammad Qasim that he has entered into wedlock with Mst. Khatoo and that she had made the two statements referred to earlier in which she has emphatically denied having anything to do with Gut Muhammad. The learned counsel appearing for Muhammad Qasim vehemently urged that a false case was set up by Gut Muhammad after long lapse of the alleged incident, and these proceedings are Also totally mala fide. We would not like to make any observations in this regard; we are not even recording the statement of Mst. Khatoo, for the reason that a criminal case has been registered in regard to her abduction, which has to be disposed of according to law. Moreover, she has already made statements, twice, before the Courts of law, and there is no need to make her do so for the third time before this Court, particularly when we are clearly of the view that these proceedings launched by the petitioner are totally vexatious.

We, therefore, not only dismiss this Miscellaneous application and recall rule nisi issued by this Court, but also award costs of Rs. 200 payable by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2.

Application dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.