1. ' MUHAMMAD IQBAL MEHAR, J.---The petitioner/complainant has challenged order dated 12.8.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate IX Hyderabad whereby he agreed with the opinion of Police and accepted the summary in 'C' Class as prayed.
2. ' Related facts are that petitioner/complainant Shr. Gori has two sons namely Kirshan aged about 15 years and Mohan aged about 10 years. They were working at Matiari where Ali Sher Khoso, Piyaro Khoso, Ali Asghar Khoso, Khair Muhammad Khoso and Esso Khoso were also working with them. The complainant along with her sons shifted to Madina town Hyderabad which caused annoyance to Ali Sher Khoso and others. They asked her for returning back but she refused where upon they threatened that her son would be abducted. On 12.1.2015 her son Kirshan left house for purchasing mangoes from fruit market Hyderabad and giving to Mst. Madam, the sister of complainant, at Matiari. At about 1200 hours she received call on contact number of he son Mohan from Esso Khoso who told her that he, Ali Sher Khoso, Piyaro Khoso, Ali Asgar Khoso and Khair Muhammad Khoso at 1100 hours have abducted her son Kirshan from Bakra Mandi in front of P.S. And they were going.
3. They further told that until she would not return back they would not release him. She repeatedly approached the accused but they did not return her son. Thereafter she filed Misc: application and on the order of learned Justice of Peace her FIR was registered.
4. ' Learned counsel for petitioner contended that FIR discloses facts of a heinous offence in which son of petitioner has been abducted, that the investigating officer has not conducted proper and fair investigation as neither he arrested the accused and nor recovered the abduclee. He further contended that the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate is against the law and is liable to set aside.
5. ' The learned counsel for proposed accused contended that no witness has been cited in FIR which was lodged after six months of the alleged incident, that during investigation 1.0., recorded statement of Balam, the father of alleged abductee, but he stated that he has no son with name of Kirshan, that the report of I.O. And impugned order are speaking therefore instant petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. ' Learned 'State counsel submitted that the impugned order is not speaking one.
7. ' Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. ' Perusal of record reflects that there is no eye-witness of the incident as none has seen anybody while abducting Kirshan including the petitioner/complainant. The place of incident is shown as Bakra Mandi a thickly populated area and at distance of 1/2-furlong from Police Station but none from the locality has been cited as witness. As per FIR purpose of leaving house by abductee was to purchase mango from market in January is hardly believable. Per FIR whole the case is based on extra judicial confession of accused Esso before petitioner/complainant on Mobile phone although it was not necessary to inform her because there was no allegation of demand of ransom amount from complainant party. Furthermore the petitioner/complainant did not cooperate with the I.O. In collecting the DATA of Mobile phone of her son Mohan. An important aspect of the case is that one Balam, the father of Kirshan, stated before Police that he has only one son from the petitioner/complainant and Kirshan is not his son and this fact has been got verified by 1.0 from NADRA authority. In view of above I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate does not suffer from any infirmity therefore instant constitution petition is dismissed.