Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ANWAR VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD SULEMAN
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Afzal Zullah Title: MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs MUHAMMAD SULEMAN Case No.: Criminal Miscellaneous No, 586/H of 1978 Date of Judgment:1978-07-23 Reported As: PLD 1978 Lahore 1330 Result: Application dismissed
Judgment ORDER ' This is a usual type of habeas corpus petition in an abduction case. It appears that culprits forced an abductee (the alleged detenu) to file a writ petition in this Court showing as if she was a willing party to a Nikahnama. The writ petition came up before my learned brother, Gulbaz Khan, J., on 24- 5-1978 when it was dismissed in limine. It was noted that according to the abductee's brother her age was 13/14 years and further that she had supported the prosecution case in her statement under section 161, Cr. P. C. The High Court had observed that her statement might also be recorded under section 164, Cr. P. C. Learned counsel states that the statement was recorded in which she supported the prosecution; but according to the learned counsel this was under coercion. It is very strange that according to the learned counsel when the abductee purportedly became party to the Nikah (when according to her brother she was with her abductors), she was not under coercion but when she made a statement before a Magistrate under section 164, Cr. P. C. She was under coercion. Reliance of the learned counsel on the writ petition which was allegedly filed by the abductee is misplaced and does not help the petitioner. 2. At present, it is stated that the abductee is with her brother. It will be unfair to the abductee if she is brought at the instance of the petitioner, her alleged abductor, to this Court. If the petitioner thinks that the abductee has not made the statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. Out of her free will, the accused would have an opportunity of establishing the same through cross-examination when she appears as a prosecution witness against them at the trial. Learned counsel has expressed an apprehension that the detenu being pregnant there is likelihood of the respondent causing her some physical harm. That is hardly a reason for the petitioner seeking the custody of the detenu. If
---
## Page 2
the pregnancy is on account of rape and if in that situation she is restored to the petitioner, she will be under graver danger in so far as her pregnancy is concerned. 3. With the above observations I find no merit in this petition. It is not only frivolous but also mala fide. Dismissed in limine.