Soofi ABID Versus S.H.O.
ORDER
In brief the facts of this case are that on 26‑12‑1987 Munir Afzal gave application to S.S.P. Rawalpindi (Annexure K) for registration of a case on the allegation that his wife Mst. Naziran alias Kasur was enticed on 24‑12‑1987 by Abid and others from his house. It appears that no action was taken on this petition. Munir Afzal, therefore, on 30‑12‑1987 got a case registered at Police Station Peoples Colony, Faisalabad vide F.I.R. No. 508, dated 30‑12‑1987 under section 10/16 Ordinance VII of 1979. It was alleged by him that he was a resident of Bazar Abdullahpur Faisalabad. He married Mst. Naziran alias Kasur about six years earlier and had one child out of the wedlock. Mst. Naziran also had two children from her first husband. He went to Rawalpindi and in his absence she was enticed by Sufi Abid and Malik Razzaq both of Rawalpindi. The case was under investigation. On 2‑2‑1988 Mst. Naziran of her own appeared before Duty Magistrate, Faisalabad who recorded her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. She stated therein that her husband Munir Afzal was truck driver and poor man and that she had four children. It was, therefore, difficult to pull on. She from time to time got some loan from her neighbour Abid and Razzaq. The loan amounted to Rs.5,000 and in order to secure the said loan, she pawned television and tape‑recorder with them. She further stated that her husband tried to take back these articles from them. They refused on account of which her husband Munir Afzal got the case registered against them. It appears that Mst. Naziran after her restoration was again abducted by Sufi Abid, Sajad and others on 13‑4 1988 whereafter another case was registered at the instance of Muhammad Ashraf at P.S. Phalia District Gujrat vide F.I.R. No. 318, dated 5‑6‑1988. This is a Constitutional petition by Sufi Abid, Sajjad Mahmood and Shahnaz Begum seeking quashment of F.I.R. No. 508, dated 30‑12‑1987 P.S. Peoples Colony Faisalabad and F.I.R. No. 118, dated 5‑6‑1988 P.S. Phalia District Gujrat.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused all the documents which form part of this file. Annexure `A' is F.I.R. No. 508 and Annexure `B' is F.I.R. No. 118. Annexure `C' is copy of application by Mst. Naziran dated 1‑2‑1988 for recording of her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Annexure `D' is the preliminary proceeding recorded by Duty Magistrate Faisalabad on 2‑2‑1988 and Annexure `E' is the copy of the statement of Mst. Naziran under section 164, Cr.P.C. Annexure `F is affidavit of Bahadur Khan, alleged first husband of Mst. Naziran. It is stated by him that he was serving imprisonment in Rawalpindi Jail in a murder case that Munir Afzal abducted his wife Naziran and that he never divorced her, Annexure .`H' is a photostat of an application by Bahadur Khan (not dated) to S.S.P. Gujrat for registration of case against Munir Afzal. Annexure `H' is copy of application dated 17‑7‑1988 by Abid to S.S.P. Gujrat for transfer of investigation to some other officer. Annexure `J' is a certificate from District Magistrate P.R.T.C. declaring that Sajid. Mahmood a Junior Clerk was on duty on 13th and 14th April, 1988. Annexure `K' is the application of Munir Afzal already mentioned above. Annexure `L' is the affidavit of Abdul Hameed a Wajtakar witness named in F.I.R. No. 508 and Annexure `M' is an affidavit of Khalid Mahmood in which he stated that Munir Afzal had taken his house on rent through Abid.
3. In support of this petition it is contended that the two cases registered v :de F.I.Rs. Nos. 508 and 118 were false and not supported by any evidence secondly, that Mst. Naziran abductee made statement under section 164, Cr.P.C, absolving the petitioner from the charge of abduction. Thirdly, that there was conflict in application dated 26‑12‑1987 Annexure `K' and the two F.I.Rs. which make both the cases doubtful and as such be quashed, and finally that the affidavit of Abdul Hameed and Khalid Mahmood belied the prosecution case. 1 have carefully examined these contentions and find them without any merits. The F.I.R. No. 5W and F.I.R. No. 118 give detail account of the occurrence. These documents also contained the names of the witnesses. Abid, c*'c. accused are resident of Rawalpindi. They enticed Mst. Naziran and took her to Rawalpindi. Munir Afzal complainant, therefore, thought it proper to seek help from S.S.P. Rawalpindi. The abduction having taken place in Faisalabad, Munir Afzal complainant, only four days thereafter got the case registered at Police Station Peoples Colony, Faisalabad. Even the statement of Mst. Naziran Begum dated 2‑2‑1988 also indicated that she was residing with her husband Munir Afzal in Faisalabad for the last six years. Munir Afzal, therefore, naturally got the case registered in Faisalabad. It appears that Mst. Naziran started living with her brother Muhammad Ashraf in village Dhool. She again was enticed by Abid etc. accused on 13‑4‑1988 on account of which another case was registered vide F.I.R. No. 118. This F.I.R. also contains the details and names of the witnesses. Both the F.I.Rs. pertain to two different occurrence, I am, therefore, not inclined to agree with the learned counsel that there was conflict between the two F.I.Rs. and the application dated 26‑12‑1987. (Annexure `K'). The two cases are under, investigation. It is, therefore, difficult at this stage to come to a conclusion in this',, Constitutional petition that those F.I.Rs. were false or got registered with mala fides. It is correct that in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. dated 2‑2‑1988 Mst. Naziran abductee did not support, her husband or her brother. She was not produced before the Magistrate by police. She seems to have been produced before the Magistrate by the accused from their custody. She, therefore, naturally supported them. The said statement cannot, therefore, be made basis of quashment of the two reports. The two cases registered against the accused cannot be considered at this stage, to be cases of no evidence. The cases registered under these reports are still being investigated by police. I, therefore, find no merit in this petition which is dismissed in limine.
M.Y.H./A‑449/L Petition dismissed.