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.
Writ petition No. 1377 of 1980, decided on 24th February, 1980.
Art. 199 and Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 154-Writ against alleged harassment by S. H. O./respondent-S. H. O. stating that he would not arrest petitioner or compel her to make a statement according to wishes of Police-Petitioner no longer required for purpose of investigation and S.H.O. undertaking not to harass her---In view of statement of S. H. O./respondent No. 1, held, writ fructified and disposed of finally.
Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem for Petitioner
Respondent in person.
Date of hearing : 24th February, 1980.
By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of respon dent No. 1 and has prayed that she be provided protection of life, liberty and honour against the highhandedness of the said respondent.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 1 is compelling the petitioner to provide evidence and witnesses against Muhammad Sadiq alias Mailu.
3. The S. H. O. is present and states that on an application by Muhammad Sarwar (respondent No. 4), a warrant under section 100, Cr. P. C. was issued by the Ilaqa Magistrate on 28-1-1980 for the recovery of the petitioner and in execution of that warrant, petitioner was recovered from the, house of Sadiq alias Mailu and produced before the Ilaqa Magistrate on 4-2-1980 where she made a statement in which she disclosed facts constitution offence cognizable by police and the learned Magistrate also directed the S. H. O. to register a case. Accordingly, case F. I. R. No. 26 was registered on 6-2-1980. According to the S. H. O., the petitioner is the complainant in the said case. He states that he does not want her to be arrested as an accused in the abovesaid case and he has undertaken not to compel the petitioner to make a statement according to the wishes of the police. He further states that be does not want to record, the petitioner's statement as she is no required any further for the purpose of investigation and also undertakes not to harass the petitioner unnecessarily.
4. In view of the above statement of the S. H. O., the petition has fructified and is finally disposed of. With regard to the registration of a new case the petitioner may approach the S. H. O. for making a statement before him and be may, if an offence cognizable by the police has been disclosed, record an F. I. R. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order accordingly
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer