Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 483/Q of 1975, decided on 23rd January 1976.

-‑‑ Ss. 363 & 366‑Kidnapping‑Offence under S. 363 completed as soon as girl under 16 years of age removed out of keeping of her law ful guardian‑Consent of such girl to marriage with kidnapper‑Held, cannot absolve kidnapper of offence under S. 363.‑[Kidnapping].

Abdul Latif v. Muhammad Shafi 1970 Law Notes 393 distinguished.

Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa for Petitioner.

Sh. Zia‑ud‑Din for the State.

The petitioners have moved this petition under section 561‑A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of proceedings under sections 363 and 366, P. P. C. pending against them in the Court of Assistant Commissioner, Dera Ghazi Khan. The allegations are that on 16th June 1974 the petitioners abducted Mst. Nasim Bibi, a minor girl, from her house. After her recovery Mst. Nasim Bibi made a statement under section 164, Cr. P. C: in which she alleged that Mst. Jindan petitioner induced her to marry his son Manzur Hussain petitioner and she left her house in her company. In the street Manzur Husain, Allah Bakhsh and Ahmad Din petitioners joined them and they forcibly took her away. She was kept in the house of Mustafa Qureshi, Advocate for the night. Two days later, she was produced before a Magistrate where she made a statement under the threats of the aforesaid Advocate. She was again taken to the house of the said Advocate where she was forced to sign some papers. In her statement at the trial she stated that Mst. Jindan asked her to marry her son Manzur and she agreed to the proposal and accompanied her. Outside her house,. Manzur and Allah Bakhsh joined them and took her to the house of Mustafa Advocate where she stayed for the night. On the next day she was taken to the hospital for examination but she could not be examined as the hospital was closed. On the 4th day she was produced before a Magistrate where she made a statement, which was false. She further stated that aforesaid Advocate and his Munshi performed her Nikah and she was asked to thumb‑mark and sign a paper. It is also in her statement that she went with the accused party of her own and entered into a marriage contract with her free consenting. In view of her statement, the learned trial Magistrate permitted her to go with Manzur petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Mst. Nasim Bibi did not support the prosecution case and made a categorical statement that she had married Manzur petitioner of her own free will, therefore, there is no possibility of conviction and the continuation of the proceedings would Amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. In support of this conten tion he relied on Abdul Latif v. Muhammad Shafi (1970 Law Notes 393).

3. I have gone through the relevant record and the authority cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The facts in that case were somewhat different. In ‑ that case the alleged abductee was 17/18 years of age and had made a statement that she was not abducted and had married Abdul Latif of her own free will. In the instant case, the birth entry of the abductee has been produced which shows that she was born on 9th January 1959, meaning thereby that at the time of occurrence she was under 16 years of age. Her consent to marriage with Manzur petitioner cannot absolve her kidnapper of the offence under section 363, P. P. C. Technically the offence under section 363, P. P. C. was complete as soon as she was removed out of the keeping of her lawful guardian.

4. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this petition and it is hereby dismissed.

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.