Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD BOOTA VS Respondent: STATION HOUSE OFFICER
1997 PCr
1997 PCr.LJ 619
[Lahore]
Before Sharif Hussain Bokhari, J
MUHAMMAD BOOTA and another---Petitioners
Versus
STATION HOUSE OFFICER and 2 others---Respondents
Writ Petition No. 16634 of 1995, decided on 1st July, 1996
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance;(VII of 1979)---
----Ss. 10, 13, 14 ,& 16---Penal Code (XLV of 1860),, Ss.324 & 294-- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional'petition---Registration of F. I. R. ---Grievance of the petitioners was that police instead of registering the case against the accused (respondents) under Ss.10, 13, 14 & 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and under S.324, P.P.C. had registered the case only under S.294, P.P.C.---Challan having already been submitted and cognizance having been taken by Trial Court, it was not appropriate to order reinvestigation-- -Trial Court, on the basis of evidence, finding that accused had committed some other offences, could charge them for the same and if such offences were not triable by the Magistrate he could send the case for trial to the Court of competent jurisdiction---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.
Ch. Muhammad Ilyas Komal for Petitioners.
Rana Muhammad Arif for Respondents Nos.3 and 4.
ORDER
The relevant facts as stated in the petition are that Mst. Rani, respondent No.4, who is married with petitioner No.l, left the house of the latter as she had allegedly developed illicit relations with Israil respondent No.3. Subsequently respondents Nos.3 and 4 enticed away Shamim Kausar, petitioner No.2 the daughter of Muhammad Boota. Respondents Nos.3 and 4 went to Pattoki where the petitioner No.2 was made to indulge in prostitution against her wishes. This was narrated by petitioner No.2 to petitioner No. l when the former ran away from the house of respondents Nos.3 and 4. On 8-11-1995 respondents Nos.3 and 4 were statedly in the same house when the petitioners alongwith some respectables went to the spot. On seeing, respondent No.3 fired pistol shots -at petitioner No. 1 but by chance he was saved. This scene was witnessed by the neighbourers and was also reported in the press next day. Accordingly petitioner No. l submitted an application to the S.H.O., Police Station Pattoki for registration of the case against respondents Nos.3 and 4 under sections 10, 13, 14 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 324 of the P.P.C. but respondents Nos. l and 2 registered a case under section 294, P.P.C. against respondents Nos.3 and 4 as they wanted to favour respondent No.3.
2. Pre-admission notice was issued to respondents Nos. 3 and 4. On 30-1-1996 Zulfiqar Ahmad, Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station Pattoki appeared and stated that F.I.R. No.357 of 1995 was registered against respondents Nos.3 and 4 under section 294, P.P.C. and that after submitting the challan the learned Court of A.C., Pattoki has taken cognizance thereof.
3.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the investigation was conducted partially favouring respondent No.3 and that is why the -case was registered only under section 294, P.P.C. although the offences as reported in the application were committed under sections 10, 11, 13 and 14 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 which are triable by the learned Sessions Court. He further submits that notwithstanding the submission of challan this Court can still direct reinvestigation of the case.
4. Although reinvestigation can be ordered in proper cases yet in the present case when the challan has already been submitted and the cognizance taken by the Court, it would not be appropriate to order reinvestigation. The learned trial Court if, on the basis of the evidence available on record, finds that some other offences have also been committed by the accused, they can be charged for the same by the learned trial Court. If the offence on the basis of such evidence is not triable by the Assistant Commissioner, Pattoki who is presently seized with the matter, he can send the case to the Court of competent I jurisdiction for trial. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
N.H.Q./M-161/L Petition dismissed.