SURAYA BEGUM vs INSPECTORGENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others
This matter concerns a petition filed by the petitioner alleging the illegal custody of her son, Muhammad Almas, which led to the registration of an FIR under Section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Upon investigation, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner had fabricated the allegations to exert pressure in a civil dispute regarding a house. The Court observed that the petitioner had sworn false affidavits before both the High Court and the Supreme Court. The alleged abductee was produced by the petitioner's husband immediately after the opposing party conceded to the petitioner's demands in the civil dispute. The Court held that such conduct, involving the abuse of legal machinery and the submission of false statements, cannot be left unnoticed. Consequently, the Court directed the police to initiate proceedings against the petitioner for lodging a false complaint and referred the matter to the High Court to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner for filing false affidavits, emphasizing the need for a deterrent to prevent similar abuse of the judicial process.
- Can a court initiate proceedings against a complainant who files false affidavits and fabricated statements to misuse the legal machinery?
- Is the filing of a false FIR to settle a civil dispute considered an abuse of the process of law?
- What is the appropriate course of action for a court when a petitioner is found to have sworn false affidavits before it?
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---Learned counsel for the petitioner has candidly admitted that prima facie a false assertion was made by the petitioner before the Police while lodging the F.I.R. No,. 290 of 2008, under section 365, P.P.C., ..With Police Station City Kamoki, District Gujranwala. ' fabricated and concocted statements have also been made by the complainant Mst. Surraya Begum before the High Court as well as before this Court, contending therein that her son namely Muhammad Almas is in illegal custody and he may be ordered to be recovered.
2. Facts and circumstances mentioned in our order dated 7-5-2012 fully support that the petitioner in order to settle her civil dispute with her opponents in respect of a house, moved the machinery of law on false pretext. No,t only this, she also prima facie dared to sworn in false affidavits before the High Court and even before this Court. We have noticed that the Police did its best under the directions of the High Court as well as of this Court to effect the recovery of Muhammad Almas but ultimately the ' allegations made by the petitioner turns to be baseless and false as no sooner her opponents withdrew the execution application filed by them in pursuance of a civil Court's decree and handed over possession of two rooms of the house in dispute to the petitioner, she or her husband Abbas within one hour produced the abductee Muhammad Almas before the Police as this fact is evident from perusal of the record including the report submitted by the police. The conduct on the part of the petitioner is highly illegal, therefore, her such action cannot be left unnoticed. We do appreciate the conduct of the RPO Gujranwala i.e, Capt. Amin Wains and the members of his team in solving the mystery of this case. However, we directed the police to proceed against the complainant Mst. Surraya Begum, who prima facie seems to have lodged a false complaint. At the same time, we send this case to the learned High Court for proceeding against the complainant Mst. Surraya Begum so it may serve as deterrent for likeminded persons, keeping in view the judgment of this Court in the case of Muhammad Afzal v. The State (2001 SCM R 1615). Needless to observe that the Court before whom the police shall lodge proceedings against the petitioner/complainant Mst. Surraya Begum or anyone else, who is responsible for filing false/fabricated/concocted affidavits/statements before this Court or High Court in this matter, shall dispose of such proceedings within a period of thirty days, after receipt hereof and a compliance report in this regard be sent to the Registrar of this Court for our perusal in Chambers.
' This petition stands disposed of in above terms.