' Mst. Zahida Parveen, a daughter of Muhammad Ali, has come up in this constitutional petition, ostensibly seeking to challenge my order dated 7th May, 1984, in Cr. Miscellaneous No, 886/B-1984.
2. The facts of the case are that Muhammad Ali respondent No, 2 In this petition is father of Mst.
Zahida Parveen. She was allegedly abducted by Amjad Hussain etc., accused on account of which a case was registered against them which is pending investigation. Amjad Hussain etc. Accused were required by the police alongwith Mst. Zahida Parveen petitioner for the purpose of investigation. Amjad Hussain was arrested while the other accused approached the learned Additional Session Judge, Lahore, for their pre-arrest bail. Amjad Hussain also filed an application for his bail. All these accused were allowed bail in their respective applications whereafter Muhammad Ali complainant filed Cr. Miscellaneous No, 886/B-1984 for cancellation of their bail. In that application for cancellation of bail, on 7th May, 1984, 1 had passed the following interim orders :- "After detailed arguments, I pointed out to the learned counsel for the respondents-accused that although Mst. Zahida Parveen had been appearing before various Courts and making statements but my impression is that, at no occasion, she was a free agent. Learned counsel says that she was making statements of her own accord.
(2) In the circumstances of this case, I think it will be proper if Mst. Zahida Parveen is lodged in Darul Aman, as it was at one time requested by herself in an application to the Ilaqa Magistrate on 14th March, 1984. Muhammad Sharif A. S. I. P. S. Race Course Road, Lahore, is present in Court. He is directed to recover Mst. Zahida Parveen from the accused-respondents and lodge her in Darul Aman, Lahore, today without fail. She will be kept there till 13th instant and produced in Court by Muhammad Sharif A. S.-I. Himself on 14th May, 1984.
The father and mother of Mst. Zahida Parveen will only be permitted to meet her and have talk with her in Darul Aman.
(3) The present petition is adjourned to 14th May, 1984 when Mst. Zahida Parveen will be brought from Darul Aman for her statement in this Court. The expenses will be paid by Muhammad Ali petitioner."
' In this petition, the following prayers have been made :- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that it be directed that the petitioner shall not be taken in custody by Muhammad Sharif A. S.-I. As earlier ordered by this Honourable Court on 7th May, 1984 or by any other Police Officer and shall not, in any manner, be deprived of her liberty. It be further directed that she be not lodged in Darul Aman, Lahore. In the alternative, in view of the Submissions made as above, a direction be issued to the petitioner to lodge herself in Darul Aman, Lahore, with a further direction that no person shall be allowed to see her so that when produced before this Hon'ble Court she may really make a statement of her own free will and accord, without having any extraneous influence or inducement from any side. Any other relief, deemed equitable and just, be also allowed."
3. While passing order, dated 7th May, 1984, I was mainly impressed by two facts : Firstly, that whenever Mst. Zahida Parveen, petitioner herein, made a statement or appeared before any Court or Investigating Officer, she always appeared from the custody of Amjad Hussain etc. Accused.
Secondly, on 14th March, 1984, she had made an application to the Illaqa Magistrate for sending her to Darul Aman. Copy of this applipcation is attached with the present petition as Annexure 'D'.
She appeared before the Magistrate alongwith Mr. Muhammad Sarfraz, Advocate, who made a request that she should be sent to Darul Aman which was necessary for protection of her life.
Thereafter, the learned Magistrate on the same day recorded the statement of Mst. Zahida Parveen in which she stated that she had married Amjad Hussain of her own free will and that her parents are opposed to her and further that the wanted to go alongwith her husband. After this, the Court passed an order on the same day that since Mst. Zahida Parveen is an adult lady, she is at liberty to go whenever she likes. In view of these two factors, I directed that Mst. Zahida Parveen did not appear to be a free agent at any occasion when she was produced before any Court or Investigating Officer. I, therefore, in the interest of justice directed that she should be lodged in Darul Aman, Lahore, with a direction that only her parents will be permitted to meet her there. This was done to remove any element of fear from her mind which she may be having from the accused side. This petition seeks to challenge my earlier order dated 7th May, 1984.
4. Mst. Zahida Parveen is not present in Court today. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner addressed lengthy arguments in support of this petition. He relied upon PLD 1963 Dacca 464, PLD 1962 Kar. 442, PLD 1975 Lah. 234, 1973 SCMR 351 and 1983 P Cr: L J 182 (2).
5. I have considered the arguments and the case-law cited at the Bar by the learned counsel. I need not go in detailed discussion of these because this petition can be disposed of on two short points. Firstly, in my view this petition appears to have been filed/got filed with mala fides in order to frustrate the impugned order, dated 7th May, 1984. A bare reading of my order, dated 7th May, 1984 would make it clear that the purpose of lodging Mst. Zahida in Darul Aman was not to put her in some confinement. The order for lodging her in Darul Aman was certainly different from the order of custody/detention of an alleged criminal or even a political detenu. The order dated 7th May, 1984, had the complexion of the custody of a guardian. It had an objective different from confinement or placing restrictions on her movements. The purpose was to give her protection and remove any possible fear of the accused persons and make a free agent to make statement before me on 14th May, 1984. Even a perusal of the prayer in this petition would show that there is no serious objection to her lodging in Darul Aman under orders of this Court. The main objection appears to be regarding permission to her parents to meet their daughter in Darul Aman. The present petition, therefore, has been filed/got filed with mala fides in order to frustrate the order of this Court. The relief allowed to a petitioner in constitutional petition is discretionary. Such relief cannot be given to a person who has not come with clean hands in a Court. To me, it appears that she has filed this petition under compulsion and at the instance of Amjad Hussain etc. Accused, who are interested to frustrate the legal process. I may here add that the learned counsel argued that the petitioner herein was in custody of the accused under orders of the Magistrate dated 14th March, 1984. I find no force in this contention because the order dated 7th May, 1984 by this Court will have effect against all other orders. The second point which goes to the root of this case is regarding maintc;nability of this Petition. The present constitutional petition in this Court is directed against an interim, order, dated 7th May, 1984 passed by this very Court in a Criminal Miscellaneous petition seeking cancellation of bail. This is not permitted by any law. The cases cited at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The facts of those cases were different than the facts of case in hand. The order dated 7th May, 1984 was passed in peculiar circumstances of this case. This petition is directed against the order of this very Court which is not competent.
6. The result of the above discussion is that I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine.