Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ALLAH BAKHSH VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Ch. Iftikhar HussainMehr Haq Nawaz Humayun
2003 M L D 1921
2003 M L D 1921
[Lahore]
Before Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J
ALLAH BAKHSH‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.28‑Q of 2003, decided on 12th May, 2003.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑--
‑‑‑‑S.561‑A‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.354‑A/148/149/109‑‑ Petition for quashing of order‑‑‑Order of Magistrate whereby accused was sent to the judicial lock‑up for offence under Ss.354‑A/148/149/109, P.P.C. had been sought to be quashed by the accused‑‑‑Complainant in her F.I.R. had alleged that accused and his co‑accused had caught her and her daughters from their hair and dragged them in thoroughfare as a result of which their clothes were torn and she became naked and her daughter semi‑naked and in that condition they were exposed to the public view‑‑‑F.I.R. showed that offence under S.354‑A, P.P.C., had been made out against the accused‑‑‑Magistrate, in circumstances had rightly sent accused to judicial lock‑up‑‑‑Petition filed by accused under S.561‑A, Cr.P.C. for quashing of order of Magistrate being without substance, was dismissed.
Malik Shaukat Ali Dogar and 12 others v. Ghulam Qasim Khan Khakwani and others PLD 1994 SC 281 ref.
(b) Criminal trial‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑ Courts could check and scrutinize actions of police in exercise of their powers in judicial matters‑‑‑Same, in no way could be said to be interference with the functions or working of the police.
Mehr Haq Nawaz Humayun for Petitioner.
ORDER
Allah Bakhsh, the petitioner has brought the instant petition under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. for quashment of the order dated 8‑6‑2002. recorded by Mehr Abdul Haque, learned Magistrate section 30, Tehsil Chowbara, District Layyah, whereby he had sent the accused in case F.I.R. No.43 dated 11‑4-2002 of Police Station Chowbara to judicial lock‑up due to the offence being under sections 354‑A/148/149/109. P.P.C. instead of 354/148/149/109, P.P.C and the order dated 26‑3‑2003 passed by Mr. Jahangir Ali Sheikh, learned Sessions Judge, Layyah, whereby he has dismissed the revision petition of the Allah Ditta against the same.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the petition are that the said case i.e. F.I.R. No.43 dated 11‑4‑2003 under section 354/148/149 P.P.C. was registered with Police Station Chowbara. District Layyah. The petitioner is one of the nominated accused therein. The allegation against them in the same is that on 5‑4‑2002 at about 4/5 p.m. the complainant Mst. Allah Jawai alongwith her daughters Mst. Shakila Parveen and Najma Shaheen was returning to her house after cutting grass from their field. The petitioner and his co‑accused Zafar Iqbal and Muhammad Sharif were sitting inasmuch in their way They were armed with Dandas. They come in front of them and threatened them to kill and caught them from the hair and dragged their on the public thoroughfare. Due to the same, their clothes were torn. She became naked to the public view and her said daughters sami naked. They thus outraged their modesty and it was all at the instance of Allah Ditta and Sher Khan. The incident was witnessed by Muhammad Ahsraf and Ansar.
3. The motive behind the occurrence is that the accused had suspicion that Zafar Iqbal, her (complainant) son had scaled over the wall of their house.
4. On 8‑6‑2002, the police produced the petitioner, Allah Ditta and Zafar Iqbal before, the learned Illaqa Magistrate for their judicial remand. Their counsel prayed for admitting them to bail. The learned Magistrate observed that from the facts and circumstances of the case the offence under section 354‑A/109/148/149, P.P.C. is made out and the same is non‑bailable and with the same, he sent them to the judicial lock‑up with direction to produce them on 22-6-2002.
5. Allah Ditta his co‑accused had brought the revision petition against the said order. The same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Layyah on 26‑3‑2003, observing that the offence under section 354‑A, P.P.C. was made out in the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of both these orders has brought the same under attack by way of the instant petition.
7. It has been contended on his behalf that from the facts and circumstances of the case, the offence under section 354‑A, P.P.C. is not made out and so both the Courts below have fallen in error in holding the same otherwise; and that the learned Magistrate was not competent to make any such observation as it amounted to interference in the investigation and in support of the same the reliance has been placed upon the case of Malik Shaukat Ali Dogar and 12 others v. Ghulam Qasim Khan Khakwani and others (PLD 1994 SC 281).
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by him and perused the copies of record annexed to the petition.
9. The contents of the F.I.R. have been mentioned above. From the same, it is clear that the offences under section 354‑A, P.P.C. is made out in the instant case. Here for facility of reference the provision of section 354‑A is reproduced:‑‑
"354‑A. Assault or use of criminal force to woman and stripping her of her clothes.‑‑Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman and stripes her of her clothes and, in that condition exposes her to the public view, shall be punished with death or with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
In the light of the above provision, if the contents of the F.I.R. are seen, it is quite evident that complainant has alleged that the petitioner and his aforesaid co‑accused had caught her and her daughters from the hair and dragged them on thoroughfare and as a result whereof their clothes were torn and she became naked and her daughters semi naked and in that condition they were exposed to the public view.
10. I, therefore, find that there was no error on the part of the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge when they had observed that the offence under section 354‑A, P.P.C. is made out from the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, their orders were in the right direction.
11. As regards the case‑law referred to above by the said of the petitioner, the same proceeded on the distinguishable facts, and circumstances of the same then the one in hand. Because the above observation of both the Courts below is .not at all interference into the power of the police to investigate the matter. The Courts can check and scrutinize the actions of the police in the exercise of their powers in judicial matters. The same, in no way can be said to be interference with the function or working of the police. So, the authority referred to by his side is not at all applicable to the facts and features of the instant case. The contentions, thus raised on his behalf are without force and so those are repelled.
12. In these circumstances, the instant petition has been found to be without any substance. The same is dismissed in limine.
H.B.T./A‑843/L Petition dismissed.