' The present writ petition was filed praying for a direction for registration of a case in respect of the incident alleged herein. According to the writ petition the respondents herein are accused of having entered petitioner's house on 22-3-1989 and of taking away one Mst. Kausar Parveen forcibly alongwith valuable articles of the house etc.
2. The respondent No,1, S.H.O. Police Station Musafar Khana is present in the Court in pursuance to the notice issued to him on 3-6-1989. The respondents Nos.2 to 6 have put in appearance through their learned counsel.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends for a direction for registration of a case on the ground that one Mst. Kausar Parveen is his lawfully-wedded wife and has been forcibly taken away by the respondents Nos.2 to 6 and that he had approached the respondent No,1 for the registration of the complaint in respect thereof, as stated earlier, but the respondent No,1 refused to do so.
4. The respondent No,1, however, states that the petitioner had never approached him with any complaint whatsoever.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 has stated that Mst. Kausar Parveen alleged to have been abducted by the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 was all along in the lawful custody of her mother, including on the day of the alleged incident stated above i.e, 22-3-1989. It was further pointed out that the said mother had the custody of her daughter the said Mst. Kausar Parveen in accordance with the order of the Guardian Judge, Bahawalpur, dated 7-6-1984. It was further pointed out that the said Mst. Kausar Parveen had also filed a suit for jactitation of marriage against the present petitioner which was decreed in her favour on 2-6-1986.
6. It was further pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 that Mst. Kausar Parveen referred to above, is at present a lawfully-wedded wife of Malik Abdul Rehman and that their Nikah was solemnized on 27-3-1989.
7. The present writ petition is supported by the affidavit of the petitioner. However, no document in support of his marriage with Mst. Kausar Parveen has been produced.
8. The said Mst. Kausar Parveen is present in the Court and with the permission of the Court stated as follows:-- {{URDU TEXT}} {{URDU TEXT}}
9. To rebut what had been stated on behalf of the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 and by said Mst. Kausar Parveen the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he had invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for a direction to respondent No,1 to register a case in respect of the complaint stated in the writ petition, and that the respondent No,1 was legally bound to take down his complaint and to proceed in respect thereof in accordance with law.
10. On being asked whether or not he was in a position to rebut what has been stated on behalf of the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 and by the said Mst. Kausar Parveen, alleged to have been forcibly abducted by the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was already married to the said Mst. Kausar Parveen and any subsequent Nikah of her is against the provisions of the relevant law.
' On being asked as to what he had to say in respect of the decree in favour of the said Mst. Kausar Parveen in the suit for jactitation of marriage, the learned counsel stated that he had no knowledge of the same.
11. It was further stated by the learned counsel that the said Mst. Kausar Parveen is a co-accused alongwith the person, stated to be her husband i.e, Abdul Rehman but failed to point out as to under what complaint or case they were the accused and under what offence.
12. However, a perusal of the writ petition nowhere discloses that such an allegation was levelled against the said Mst. Kausar Parveen or the said Malik Abdul Rehman, the respondent No,4 herein.
13. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the said Mst. Kausar Parveen's statement to the effect that she was never forcibly taken away from the house of the petitioner and that she was never in the said house of the petitioner stands un-rebutted. It also is obvious that no allegation against said Mst. Kausar Parveen or the respondent No,4 herein was levelled in the writ petition and what has been said at the bar in respect thereof is not substantiated by the writ petition itself and is based on dishonest improvement and maliciousness.
Here it may be pointed out that the petitioner himself had made the present respondents party to the writ petition for a direction to the respondent No,1 for registration of the case in respect of the incident alleged therein. Therefore, it was open to the Court to hear the said respondents Nos.2 to 6 to arrive at a decision in respect of the present writ petition. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 are not relevant to arrive at a decision whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the direction prayed for under the facts and circumstances of the case is untenable and is hereby repelled.
14. The same is the position in respect of the said Mst. Kausar Parveen who has voluntarily appeared in the Court to rebut the story of the petitioner in respect of her forcible abduction. As has been pointded out earlier, the conduct of the petitioner and what has been said on his behalf, does not inspire any confidence in the truthfulness of his version but on the other hand makes it out to be a malicious attempt by him to harass and to humiliate the respondents Nos. 2 to 6, by perversely attempting to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for a direction for registration of a case that is patently false.
15. In view of what has been stated above, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed with costs.
In addition, the respondent No,1, S.H.O., Police Station c Musafar Khana, District Bahawalpur shall be entitled to special costs of Rs,1,000 (one thousand rupees) under the circumstances of the case.
16. The respondents Nos. 2 to 6 and the said Mst. Kausar Parveen are free to take any action warranted in accordance with law against the petitioner. The Additional Registrar/Deputy Registrar of this Court is hereby directed to file a complaint under the relevant provision of the law against the petitioner for having filed a false affidavit in the present case.