MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs S.H.O. and others

ORDER

' MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, J.--This petition filed by Muhammad Ramzan petitioner under section 491, Cr.P.Code pertains to the recovery and production of her wife namely Mst. Saeed Kanwal (alleged detenue) from the illegal and improper custody of the respondents Nos.3 to 13.

2. In Paragraph No,6 of instant petition it was alleged by the petitioner that Mst. Saeed Kanwal, alleged detenue telephonically contacted him two days prior to filling of this petition and informed him that she was living in a very critical condition, respondents have detained her in a locked room, they were not allowing her to move anywhere and were exerting undue pressure upon her to get a decree for dissolution of marriage from the Family Court.

3. Keeping in view the contents of the petition and contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No,1 was directed to produce the alleged detenue before this court subject to deposit of security amount of Rs,10,000.

4. In compliance of this Court's order dated 10-11-2010, Muhammad Jahangir Khan, A.S.-I. Has produced the alleged detenue Mst. Saeed Kanwal today before this Court, who while controverting all the story narrated in the petition states that she is living with her parents with her own free will and does not want to go with her husband/petitioner, who has filed instant petition only to harass her and her family members. She further states that this is second application of the petitioner before this court whereas his earlier similar application moved in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge was dismissed on 16-10-2010.

5. In view of the above statement of Mst. Saeed Kanwal (alleged detenue), this petition is dismissed. ,6. However, before parting with this order, in view of growing tendency of filling of frivolous applications under section 491, Cr.P.Code before the courts of Learned Sessions Judges and before this court, it is pertinent to reproduce relevant instructions regarding Habeas Petitions issued by this Court:-- High Court Rules and Orders Volume-V, Chapter-4, Part-F (Rules framed under section 491(2) of the Cr.P.Code, 1898, to regulate procedure in cases under section 491).

' Rule-16.---To check the tendency to file frivolous habeas corpus petitions, the court may, at its discretion, require the party concerned to deposit in advance an amount as fixed by the court directing the issuance of rule nisi to be paid to the detenus as compensation if the petition is found to be frivolous or vexatious.

Rule 17.---In disposing of any such rule the Court may in its discretion make an order for the payment by one side or the other of the costs of the rule.

' The unjustified humiliation to the girls and their families brought before the courts by the police is an irreparable injury in the case of frivolous petitions filed under section 491 Cr.P.Code. It is observed with great concern that if such an application is found baseless or unjustified the court should seek guidance from Rules 16 and 17 referred above and it is necessary in such like cases to require the parties concerned, keeping in view their social status, to deposit a handsome security amount before proceeding any further in the petitions relating to females especially. It is abundant duty of the Court to see that Habeas Petition so filed, if was filed to disgrace the respondents, then, in appropriate cases while deciding these matters the petitioners should be burdened with costs/forfeiture of security so deposited and if court deems it necessary the security can be ordered to be paid to the respondents as compensation.

7. In view of the above, case in hand is an appropriate case where security amount deposited by the petitioner i.e, Rs,10,000 should be paid to Mst. Saeed Kanwal as compensation. Office is directed to pay the security amount so deposited to Mst. Saeed Kanwal after observing the relevant formalities in this respect.