MUHAMMAD AZEEM And Another vs TALIB HUSSAIN And Another
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan following an impugned order directing the registration of a criminal case against the petitioners. The factual background involved the abduction of a six-month-old minor from the lawful custody of the mother, Mst. Shahnaz, allegedly by one Jamil with the connivance of the petitioners. This incident occurred while the mother was attending High Court proceedings regarding a habeas corpus petition filed for her own recovery. Despite a High Court order for the production of the child through police intervention, the minor remained unrecovered. The mother expressed grave apprehension regarding the child's safety, citing the prior killing of her first daughter by her in-laws. The core legal question was whether the High Court's direction to register a criminal case under Section 364 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was justified given the circumstances. The Supreme Court held that the facts of the case did not justify any interference with the High Court's order, noting the continued failure to produce the minor. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
- Does the failure to produce a minor child in a habeas corpus proceeding justify the registration of a criminal case against the alleged abductors?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court order directing the registration of a criminal case?
- Section 364, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. S. A. NUSRAT, J.--A minor child aged six months was taken away from the lawful custody of Mst.
2. Shahnaz, wife of the first petitioner, by one Jamil with the connivance of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2.
3. This was done when Mst.Shahnaz was brought to the High Court in connection with the hearing of habious carpus petition moved by her father for her recovery. The learned Court ordered the production of the child through police but no avail. The statement of Mst. Shahnaz was recorded who expressed apprehension that her child may not be killed as earlier in-laws had killed her first daughter. The impugned order was passed in the background of the above facts directing that a case under section 364, P.P.C. Should be registered against the petitioners.
2. The minor has not been produced so far and the facts of the case do not justify any interference.
4. The petition is dismissed.