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.
Criminal Petition No. 433 of 1982, decided on 6th March, 1984.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 13‑11‑1982 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 486/H of 1982.
‑--Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 491‑Habeas cropus petition‑‑‑High Court allowing detenu S, a married lady, to go with K, another lady‑Petitioner, husband of S, alleging that detenu after order of High Court was living with K but having illicit relations with K's brother who cannot be taken into account because of High Court orders‑Held, orders of High Court could not stand in way of proceedings being taken against any party who may be committing criminal offence‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed as being entirely misconceived.
Mian Yasin Wattoo, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 6th March, 1984.
The High Court, vide its order dated 13‑11‑1982, accepted the habeas corpus petition tiled by Mst Khurshid Begum, respondent No. l herein and ordered the release of the detenu Mst. Shamim Begum allowing her to go along with List. Khurshid Begum, afore‑mentioned. This is a petition seeking leave to appeal against the said order of the High Court.
After hearing Mian Yasin Watto, Advocate, we feel that he is not in a position to challenge the correctness of the impugned order of the High Court on any cogent ground, His main apprehension, however, seems to be that the alleged detenu Mst. Shamim Begum, who after the order of the High Court, is living with Mst. Khurshid Begum but having illicit relations with one Mumtaz, the brother of the said Mst. Khurshid Begum, cannot be taken into account either by petitioner No. 1, who is the husband of Mst. Shamim Begum, nor her father, petitioner No. 2 herein. In other words, they cannot take any proceedings against Mst. Shamim Begum or her alleged paramour, Mumtaz on account of the order of the High Court dated 13‑11‑r982 passed while disposing of the habeas corpus petition.
The apprehension of the learned counsel is entirely misconceived. The order of the High Court does not stand in the way of proceedings being taken against any party who may be committing a criminal offence.
There is no force in this petition, which is hereby dismissed.
M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer