Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, petitioner Muhammad Abbas has challenged the legality and propriety of order dated 2.7.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura whereby the District Police Officer, Sheikhupura was directed to register criminal case against the petitioner/Investigating Officer and S.H.O., P.S. Housing Colony for illegally confining the detenue, in a petition under Section 491, Cr .P.C. filed by Respondent No. 4 (hereinafter called the respondent).
2. Succinctly , the facts of the case are that the respondent filed filed a petition under Section 491, Cr.P.C. for the recovery of her son Abdul Rehman, aged about 14 years from the illegal detention of the petitioner , upon which learned Court below deputed a Bailif f for the recovery of aforesaid alleged detenue, who conducted raid and recovered him from. Police Station, Housing Colony . The Bailif f has submitted a report before the Court stating therein that the alleged detenue was shown to be arrested on the same day in the computer record, however , the record of the case was not shown to him. The alleged detenues namely , Abdul Rehman got recorded his statement before the lower Court that the petitioner has illegally detained him since 27.09.2017. The learned lower Court after hearing the parties passed the impugned order dated 07.11.2017 directed the DPO, Sheikhupura to register criminal case against the petitioner and S.H.O. concerned, which is subject matter of this writ petition.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. It is evident from the record that respondent filed an. application u/S. 491, Cr.P.C. seeking recovery of her son Abdul Rehman, aged about 14 years, from the illegal and unlawful custody of the petitioner and S.H.O. Housing Colony , upon which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, appointed a Bailif f, who conducted the raid and got recovered the alleged detenue from said police station. Although in the computerized record, the arrest of the alleged detenue was shown in case FIR No. 393/17, u/S. 380, PPC, P.S. Housing Colony , on the same day but it is very strange to note that neither the file of the said A case was shown to the Bailif f of the Court nor the same was produced before the learned lower Court. The alleged detenue was not nominated in the above said case and if his arrest was made through supplementary statement of the complainant, then the same should have been incorporated in the case file and non-production of said file before the Court merely computerized Rapt lost its sanctity , which appears to be made by the petitioner just to save his skin. The confinement of the, alleged detenue in the police station without its entry in the relevant record is an offence and called for action against the delinquent police officials. Learned Court below after appreciating the entire record in its true perspective rightly passed the impugned order which needs no interference by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction.
For what has been discussed above, the petition in hand is .devoid of any force, the same stands dismissed.