The confirmation of a delay of four months in the filing of the FIR was not reasonably clarified, as section 498 of the Code of Conduct (XLV of 1860), section 365B ad interim pre-arrest guarantee, was delayed. Had made it suspicious that this was practically impossible. The father of the mother's survivor, especially when her daughter was abducted by some people. And he did not immediately file a lawsuit against them. And it was also not possible that it took four months for the kidnappers to know their names. When the daughter was kidnapped, the father or the family would get upset and try to find out immediately, But that was not the case in the present case, but after an delay of four months, an FIR was filed. Was it not possible that in these four months they did not know who had abducted their daughter? The FIR, in the circumstances, casts serious doubts about the incident, as well as the role of the accused investigating officer present in the court, who clearly stated that the alleged kidnapper was not recovered from the accused. ? The accused and the complainant could not be excluded from their false involvement in the case, but the investigating officer also stated that he was unable to finalize his investigation as the kidnapper was not recovered. And until it was recovered, he would not be able to give his final conclusions about the charges against the accused. It is likely that the complainant's daughter had also taken the complainant's daughter abroad with the central suspect in the incident. ; If that happens, then the kidnapping mills
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
