Find a Lawyer

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑

‑‑1 S. 491‑Habeas corpus‑Petitioner representing that the detenu (girl) , if not recovered, would either he disposed of or used as source of income through prostitution ‑‑ Petitioner by misrepresenting age and abduction of girl obtaining bailiff from Court ‑ Bailiff recovering girl from her uncle's house when her rukhsati arrangements were actually in progress one day after her marriage‑No evidence pro duced in support of such reckless allegations‑Process of law not to be utilised for ulterior motives and for personal aggrandisement on such solemn occasions in life of an innocent girl‑Petition having turned out to be motivated, unjustified arid baseless dismissed and petitioner burdened with costs of Rs. 1,000 payable to respon dents.‑[Habeas corpus].

A. G. Pervalz for Petitioner.

Malik A. R. Arshad for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 16th March 1976..

This is an application for recovery and production of Mst. Shah Jehan Begum. The detenu has been recovered and produced in Court. She has made a statement. She has deposed that she is 19 years of age and that she yeas married on 11‑3‑1976 to Muhammad Irshad son of Muhammad Ishaque. The nikah had taken place on that date but the barat was to arrive the next day when the rukhsati was to take place. On the next day, i.e. 12‑3‑1976, when the barat was to arrive, she has depose, a bailiff of this Court recovered her from the house of her uncle Zawar respondent No. 1 and lodged her in Darulaman wherefrom she was brought to Court today. She has deposed that she does not want to live with her maternal aunt Mumtaz Begum. Learned counsel for the petitioner put certain questions to the detenu on the subject of her age, but he was not in a position to establish that the detenu was a minor or was of lesser age. In these circumstances I have no option but to hand over the custody of the detenu to her husband Muhammad Irshad (who was present in Court) and to her uncle Zawar respondent No. I (who was also present in Court).

2. Before parting with this case, I must say that this was a case o complete misuse of the process of law. The barat had actually arrived and the girl was in the process of being sent to her matrimonial home when by misrepresenting the facts a raid was got conducted which created an alarm for everybody and upset the entire arrangements at that place It was represented in the petition that the detenu was of 14/15 years of age, but no evidence worth the name has been produced in support thereof. In the petition, which was filed on 12‑3‑1976 with the request that it should be taken up on the same date (and was actually so directed to be taken up by the learned Senior Puisne Judge and was put up before me), it was averred that a week ago the detenu had been kidnapped by the respondents while the petitioner was away from the house. Strangely enough; at that time no petition was filed in this Court or any where else and nor was any such question put to the girl when her statement was recorded, but, on the other hand, when the rukhsati arrangements were actually in process a bailiff was obtained from this Court by misrepresenting the fact of her age and abduction. It was further misrepresented that the marriage was yet to take place, though the uncontroverted material brought on record shows that the marriage had in fact taken place on 11‑3‑1976 and only rukhsati was to take place on 12‑3‑1976. The unjustified humiliation and infamy brought to the girl and others concerned through this petition can well be imagined. In the petition it was further stated that the respondents had a, dubious character and if the detenu was not recovered, either she would be disposed of by the respondents or she would be used as source of income through prostitution. It was a very reckless allegation and today no evidence worth the name in support thereof has been produced and nor was any question put to the detenu in that respect. In the written reply filed by respondent No. 1 some allegations rather against the character of the petitioner have been made, but I do not want to go into the same and would only observe that process of law should not be utilized for ulterior motives and for personal aggrandisement on such solemn occasions in the life of an innocent girl. The petition is dismissed. As the petition has turned out to be motivated and totally unjustified and baseless, the petitioner is burdened with costs of Rs. 1,000 which she should pay to the respondents. Rupees three hundred had already been deposited as advance costs. They should he paid to the respondents. The balance should be paid within seven days.

S. Q. Petition 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.