Pakistan Case Law← Search
PLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 57

Mst. SHAHNAZ KAUSAR vs S.H.O., POLICE STATION CIVIL LINE, DISTRICT

CitationPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 57
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Crl. Misc. No, 69-H of 2014
Date2014-02-19
Judge(s)Muhammad Tariq Abbasi
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

' Ghulam Rasool, SI has put appearance with the contention that despite best and honest efforts, the alleged detenue namely Abeera Bashir could not be traced. Contentions laid down by the SI seems doubtful, hence it is directed that the DPO Muzaffargarh alongwith the SHO of the concerned Police Station should appear before the Court on 1.30 PM.

' Called again. At this time, Mr. Usman Akram Gondal, DPO, Muzaffargarh alongwith Javed Iqbal SHO of Police Station Civil Lines have attended the Court. If has been informed that just after passing of the above mentioned earlier order, the above named lady was brought in the Court and that she still is available here, When the DPO has been intimated about the above mentioned situation that non production of the lady in the Court during the earlier hours and her subsequent production, when the above mentioned order was passed, amounts that the concerned SI namely Ghulam Rasool was aware of the lady and to achieve some ulterior motive had narrated a wrong story to the Court. The DPO has contended that strict action against the delinquent will be taken. He has specifically been directed that the nasty(s) should not be spared so that all the system should be streamlined and no embarrassm ent may occur to anyone including the Police Department, which is considered and presumed to be a disciplined one.

2. Mst. Abira Bashir has contended she has come to the Court from the house of her husband Syed Shahenshah Bukhari (Respondent No, 2) with whom she according to her free will and consent has contracted 'Nikah' on 5.12.2013. As per request of the petitioner, the lady has been made to sit with here for a reasonable time and when ' the case has again been called, she has categorically stated that she would go and live with her above named husband and not at all with the petitioner.

3. In the light of the above stated situation, the petition in hand has failed and as such dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search