KHALID MEHMOOD Versus ABDUL SATTAR AND 3 OTHERS Azad Bin Hyder , A.G. Mangi, A.A.-G.

1. This is an application under section 491 Cr.P.C. The brief facts giving rise to the present application are that the case of the applicant is that his mother is tenant of respondent No.1 in respect of House No.300/53 Macchi Para, Gizri, Clifton Road, Karachi, and that the applicant is residing with her mother since last twelve months. The respondent No.2 is daughter of respondent No.1. That while residing in the above house of respondent No.1, the respondent No.2 who is daughter of respondent No.1 developed liking for the applicant and approached the mother of the applicant for her marriage with the applicant, to which the applicant and her mother agreed. However, they put the proposal before respondent No.3 who is wife of respondent No.1 but she and her husband put certain conditions which could not be satisfied by the applicant and his mother and therefore the proposal could not be materialized. That on 5th of September, 1987 the respondent No.2 Miss Noreen appeared before the Court and wanted to obtain a certificate regarding her .age. She filed an affidavit in this respect and also wrote a letter to the Civil Surgeon and Medical Superintendent, Sind Government Hospital Karachi, for medical examination with regard to her age. That the matter was to be materialized on 10‑9‑1987 but in the meantime the respondent No.1, 3 and 4 came to know about the plan of the applicant and respondent No.2, and therefore they maltreated the respondent No.2 and restrained her from further action. They also issued threats to the applicant and her mother that they will be ejected forcibly and will also be involved in some false case. It is further alleged in the application that the applicant is true Muslim and wants to marry the respondent No.2 according to principles of Quran, Sunnah, and Law of land. That the respondent No.2 is also a pious and innocent girl. She is an adult and has decided to marry with the applicant by all legal and possible means. That she has written certain letters to the applicant which have been produced as Annexure 'F'. That the respondent No.2 was being humiliated, maltreated and was confined by respondent No.1, against her wishes. It was therefore prayed that this Court may order that the respondent No.2 be set free from the custody of respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4 and in the meanwhile the respondent No.1 be restrained from removing the respondent No.2 from Karachi to Lahore.

2. I have heard Mr. Azad Bin Hyder learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi learned A.A.‑G. for the State, and have also gone through the documents produced along with the application. It is an admitted 'position that Mst. Noreen the alleged detenue is daughter of respondents Nos.1 and 3, while respondent No.4 is her brother. The applicant does not claim to be related to Miss Noreen in any way except that his mother his tenant of her father. The affidavit filed in the Court as Annexure 'A' is not attested by any body. There is no guarantee that the letter addressed to the, Civil Surgeon and produced as Annexure 'B' was signed by Miss Noreen. Same is the case with regard to *the letters produced as Annexures 'C' to 'F'. It is not the case of the applicant that he as married or is even engaged with Miss Noreen, the alleged detenue. Since Miss Noreen is residing with her parents 'it cannot be said that she was under illegal or improper detention. The assertion of the applicant is not supported by any other person. Looking to the circumstances of the case I am of the considered view that the petition has been filed mala fide and with a view to further illicit love affair and this Court cannot be party to such actions. Looking to the social and moral environment prevailing in Muslim community and tendency on the part of young man to abuse provisions of Section 491, Cr.P.C. in furtherance of their illicit love affair, the applicant is not entitled to the relief claimed. In this connection reliance is placed on Shaukat Ali v. Altaf Hussain Qureshi and another 1972 SCMR 398 in which it was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that:‑---

3. "We 'are also inclined to agree with the views expressed by the learned Judge regarding the tendency to abuse the provisions of section 491 of the Cr.P.C. on the part of some young men in furtherance of their illicit love affairs. Courts do not function in a vacuum and must take due note of the social and moral environments prevailing in the community for which the law is to be administered. Such being the case the High Court was justified in refusing relief if it came to the conclusion that the petition had been presented for the sake of furthering an illicit love affair???.."

4. In view of the above discussion I am of the considered view that the above application is mala fide and is therefore hereby dismissed. I had decided the above application on 12‑10‑1987 by a short order and these are the reasons for the same.

5. M . Y . H . / K‑46 / K ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.