Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: BASHIR AHMED VS Respondent: ROZINA SHAHEEN
1994 P Cr
1994 P Cr. L J 2409
[Lahore]
Before Sh. Ijaz Nisar, J
BASHIR AHMED --- Petitioner
Versus
Mst. ROZINA SHAHEEN ---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.46/Q of 1993, decided on 10th April, 1994
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----S. 403---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A---Quashing of proceedings---Complainant wife had yet to lead evidence against her accused husband and his parents in support of her version and she could not be deprived of such opportunity merely because suits for dower and custody of minor were pending between the parties---Quashing of proceedings was declined in circumstances.
Gasper Periera v. Mrs. Jenifer Periera and another f 977 P Cr. L J 307 ref.
Hameed Kausar for Petitioner.
Hina Jillani for Respondent.
Mian Muhammad Iqbal for the State
ORDER
This is a petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. for the quashment of proceedings in the complaint case filed by Mst. Rozina Shaheen respondent against Bashir Ahmad, etc. petitioners in the Court of Mr. Zulfiqar Ahmad Ghumman. M.I.C., Lahore Cantt. under section 403, P.P.C.
2. The relevant facts are that Mst. Rozina Shaheen filed a complaint against her husband Bashir Ahmad and his parents that they had misappropriated her dowry articles after she was turned out by Bashir Ahmad from his house. After recording the preliminary evidence, the learned trial Magistrate summoned the petitioners to face trial under section 403, P.P.C. vide order, dated 19-12-1992.
3. It is contended that the complaint is based on frivolous allegations and is outcome of civil litigation pending between the parties and further that marriage between Bashir Ahmad petitioner and Mst. Rozina Shaheen respondent still exists.
4. The respondent has contested the petition and stated that the suit for maintenance has been decided in favour of the respondent while suits for the recovery of dower and custody of the minor child are still pending between the parties.
5. A similar question had come out for consideration in the case titled Gasper Periera v. Mrs. Jennifer Periera and another 1977 P Cr. L J 307 and the High Court had held that (the mere fact that parties stand in relationship of husband and wife, would not mean that neither of them under any circumstance cannot misappropriate property exclusively belonging to other) and petition for quashment was disallowed. In the instant case, the respondent is yet to lead evidence in support of her version and she A cannot be deprived of this opportunity merely because suits for dower and custody of minor are pending between the parties. Finding no substance in the petition, I dismiss it.
N.H.Q./B-136/L Petition dismissed.