Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MST. ZAREENA PARVEEN VS Respondent: TARIQ MAHMOOD
1991 P Cr
1991 P Cr. L J 1949
[Lahore]
Before Rashid Aziz Khan, J
Mst. ZAREENA PARVEEN---Petitioner
Versus
TARIQ MAHMOOD---Respondent
Writ Petition No.2009 of 1991, decided on 18th March, 1991. .
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 403, 406, 418 & 420---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Trial Court entertained complaint filed by petitioner/complainant, but dismissed same after recording preliminary evidence of complainant on grounds, firstly that complainant had asked for the return of dowry for which she should have recourse to Civil Courts having jurisdiction and secondly that complainant had also prayed for-the return of her belongings presently in possession of respondent which could not be ordered by Magistrate---No exception could be taken to order of Trial Court based on cogent reasons.
Hina Jilani for Petitioner ORDER
Facts leading to the filing of this Constitutional petition are that petitioner Mst. Zareena has filed a complaint against the respondent for an offence under sections 403, 406, 418 and 420, P.P.C. with the allegation that she was wife of Tariq Mahmood respondent. She was divorced and turned out of the house and the respondent misappropriated her belongings, the list of which is attached with the complaint. The complaint was entertained by Magistrate 1st Class, Township who after recording preliminary evidence of the petitioner vide his judgment, dated 3-3-1991 dismissed the complaint.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court had erred in law by not issuing process to the respondent. Submits that admittedly the articles alleged to have been misappropriated belong to the petitioner which were forcibly retained by the respondent, which constituted criminal offence.
3. I have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the order impugned. The reasons given by learned Magistrate were that the petitioner had asked for the return of dowry for which she could have recourse to Civil Courts having jurisdiction. The petitioner in her prayer in the complaint has also asked for the return of her belongings presently in possession of the respondent which I feel could not be ordered by the Magistrate. I find that cogent reasons have been given in the order impugned to which no exception can be taken. Resultantly the petition fails which is accordingly dismissed.
H.B.T./Z-215/L Petition dismissed.