' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.---This revision petition is directed against the order dated 4-5- 2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmadpur East whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge summoned the petitioners to face trial under section 16 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 in private complaint filed by respondent No,1 (Mst. Ghulam Fatima).
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No,1 got registered case F.I.R. No,302 of 1999 dated 14-6-1999 under section 16 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station Ahmadpur East but after investigation the same was found to be false and cancellation report was accordingly prepared by S.H.O. However respondent filed a private complaint under section 16 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. She produced preliminary evidence and learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 4-5-2001 found that prima facie offence under section 16 was attracted, therefore, summoned the accused/ petitioners to face trial.
Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent/ complainant got registered said case (F.I.R. No,302 of 1999) on 14-6-1999 but thereafter filed petition under section 491, Cr.P.C.
Before this Court for recovery of her daughter Mst. Marium Bibi and the same was disposed of vide order dated 13-6-2000. Further submits that it was observed in the said order that matter was probed in by various authorities at the various levels, but the whereabouts of the daughter of the respondent could not be known and that her petition was temporarily consigned to record room with the observation that if the respondent was able to locate her daughter anywhere in the illegal custody of anybody, she would be entitled to get her petition resurrected so as to recover her daughter. He contended that complainant did not bring into notice of learned trial Court said order.
He submits that it was necessary for the complainant to bring into notice of trial Court all the facts but she failed to do so, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He prays for remand of case to the trial Court for passing fresh order after considering the relevant documents including order passed by this Court on 13-6-2000. Mr. M.A. Farazi, Advocate, learned State Counsel too submits that it would be proper to remand the case to the trial Court to pass order after considering order dated 13-6-2000, passed by this Court. Learned counsel for complainant/respondent has opposed this petition on the ground that it was not necessary for trial Court to consider order dated 13-6-2000 because there was no finding in the said order about this case.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties with care. The case of complainant is that petitioners took away her daughter as Muhammad Ramzan, petitioner, had illicit relation with her. She got registered case F.I.R. No,302 of 1999 on 14-6-1999 but police found the case to be false and prepared cancellation report. The complainant thereafter, filed writ petition for her recovery and the same was decided vide order dated 13-6-2000. As mentioned above, it was observed in the said order that "matter was probed in by various authorities at the various levels but the whereabouts of daughter of complainant could not be known. Also that if petitioner (complainant) was able to locate her daughter anywhere in the illegal custody of anybody she would be entitled to get her petition restored so as to recover her daughter." The daughter of complainant has not been recovered so far. As such it was necessary for the complainant to place on record of the trial Court copy of order dated 13-6-2000 and it was proper for trial Court to consider the same before passing order of summoning the accused but she failed to produce the same therefore, it was not possible for trial Court to consider that order. So in the circumstances of the case, order passed by trial Court dated 4-5-2001 is not sustainable. The impugned order is not legal and proper and is liable to be set aside.
6. The upshot of the above discussions is that this revision petition is accepted, order dated 4-5- 2001 is set aside and learned trial Court is directed to pass fresh order after considering order dated 13-6-2000 and after hearing the parties. The petitioners are directed to produce before trial Court certified copy of order dated 13-6-2000, passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. No,200-H of 2000 failing which trial Court would proceed in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before trial Court on 12-8-2002.