Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3233 of 1969, decided on 3rd November, 1981.
‑‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 365‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Dispute appearing to be over custody of daughter (alleged abductee) between parents‑‑Statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C., made by alleged abductee before Magistrate ex facie exonerating accused from any offence under S. 365, P.P.C.‑‑Revision petition coming up for hearing after almost twelve years‑‑Abductee having become sui juris‑‑No offence under S. 365, P. P. C. , against accused, held, made out‑‑Criminal case against petitioner quashed in circumstances.
Nemo for Petitioner.
Naeem Goreja for the State.
Date of hearing: 3rd November, 1981.
This is a petition under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C ., for quashment of a case instituted against Abdur Rehman, petitioner, under section 365, P.P.C.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that Abdur Rehman, petitioner, had divorced his wife, Mst. Asghari Begum, about twelve years prior to the occurrence. The children of the wed‑lock, namely, two daughters and two sons, were living with Mst. Asghari Begum, the divorced wife, in Mauza Karor. In early 1967, Abdur Rehman, petitioner, came to the house of Mst. Asghari Begum and in her absence brought his two daughters and a son to Gujranwala. After some time, Mst. Asghari Begum was able to recover one of her daughters and the son, but not Mst. Gul Nasreen. After a year of the alleged abduction /kidnapping, in January, 1968 Mst. Asghari filed a report with the police as regards the abduction /kidnapping of her daughter, Mst. ‑Gul Nasreen. After investigation, a challan was lodged against the petitioner under section 365, P.P.C.
3. Acknowledgement due post cards were issued to the petitioner and his counsel for today's date of hearing but nobody has turned up. However, with the assistance of Mr. Naeem Goreja, Advocate for the State. I have perused the record. It appears that on 30th January, 1968 the statement of Mst. Gul Nasreen, alleged abductee was recorded by a Magistrate under section 164, Cr.P.C., in which statement Mst. Gul Nasreen stated that she was not abducted/ kidnapped by her father, Abdur Rehman, but that she had gone with him on her own free will and accord and also wanted to reside with him. Accordingly, it appears that the Magistrate allowed the alleged abductee to go with her father. Subsequently, however, it appears that Mst. Gul Nasreen. P.W. made a statement to the contrary to the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. It appears that there was some dispute between the parents of Mst. Gul Nasreen, alleged abductee, as regards her custody. The statement of Mst. Gul Nasreen, the alleged abductee made before the Magistrate under section 164, Cr. P. C . ex facie exonerates the petitioner from any offence under section 365, P.P.C. The present petition which was filed in 1969 has now come up after b‑host twelve years. Since then, the abductee has not only become sui juris but very likely is married and settled. Taking all circumstances into consideration, no offence appears to be made out against the petitioner under section 365, P.P.C.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted and the criminal case against the petitioner under section 365, P.P.C. is hereby quashed.
S.A./4953/L Petition accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer