' This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 1472 of 1999 and 420 of 1999. The former petition was filed for production of Mst. Humaira who was granted pre-arrest bail by this Court but was arrested by respondents Nos.1 and 1-A from Karachi was not produced before any Magistrate and it was alleged that her life was in danger. In Writ Petition No.420 of 1999 filed by Mst. Humaira, it is prayed that as nobody had abducted her and as she is not wife of Malik Moazzam Ghayas Khokhar (respondent), the case registered vide F.I.R. No.601 of 1998 dated 25-12-1998 under section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Police Station North Cann., Lahore on the statement of respondent Malik Moazzam Ghayas Khokhar be quashed wherein it is alleged that about two months prior to the registration of case on 29-10-1998 at 8-00 p.m. Complainant's wife Mst. Humaira (petitioner) was abducted from Fortress Stadium, Lahore by Mehmood Butt, his mother Mst. Zeb Naseem and two unknown persons who were armed with fire-arms, that the complainant made an abortive attempt to chase them but it was of no avail. It was further alleged that while leaving the house Mst. Humaira had taken away rupees two lac and jewellry weighing thirty tolas.
2. In support of the afore referred petitions Miss Hina Jilani learned counsel for Mst. Humaira (petitioner) has made following submissions:-
(i) That the occurrence alleged in the F.I.R. Is dated 29-10-1998 whereas the F.I.R. Was lodged on 25- 12-1998. It is repellent to common sense that Malik Moazzam Ghayas Khokhar would wait for two months to report about the abduction of his alleged wife Humaira who happens to be the only daughter of a sitting Member of the Provincial Assembly in, the ruling party. The story itself, according to the learned counsel, is unnatural as nobody can abduct a thirty years* old woman from a busy shopping area of the Fortress Stadium, Lahore;
(ii) that Humaira petitioner has herself disowned her marriage with Malik Moazzam Ghayas and the story of abduction;
(iii) that another case was registered vide F.I.R. No.524/98 on 4-11-1998 on the statement of one Nazir Ahmad wherein the place of occurrence is the same and Mehmood Butt who is accused in the instant case is also an accused in the said case and the allegation in the said F.I.R. Was that on 2-11-1998 at about 6 p.m. Complainant Nazir Ahmad's niece named Rabia alias Nanni aged 18/19 years was abducted by Mehmood Butt and his brother Naeem Butt in a Pajero bearing No. LHY- 8301 (the same vehicle as in F.I.R. No.601 of 1998). The F.I.R. Has been found to be false and Abdul Rauf Dogar, S.P., C.I.A., Lahore has conceded that the case was registered to arrest Mehmood Butt and Huniaira both. Humaira's name was not mentioned in this F.I.R. Because they wanted to hide the factum of afore referred Nikah. The cancellation of this F.I.R. Proves beyond doubt that the whole subsequent story of abduction and the registration of case vide F.I.R. No.601/98, P.S. North Cantt., Lahore quashment of which is sought is also false and product of mala fides;
(iv) that the petitioner married Mehmood against the wishes of her parents who were after her on that account. Apprehending danger to her life and the life of Mehmood Butt (her husband) they fled away to Karachi and sought protection in Edhi Centre in November, 1998. Brother of Humaira Ali Abbas Khokhar chased her there and made a Report No.23 dated 1-12-1998 at P.S. Nazimabad, Karachi (which is Annexure E in the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Nc440-B/98) to the effect that his sister Humaira after having a row with her mother left the house, was residing at Edhi Centre and that he be helped to recover her. There was no mention in the said report about her alleged Nikah with Malik Moazzam Ghayas or about her abduction by Mehmood Butt. This is further endorsed by a letter dated 1-12-1998 written by D.S.P., Nazimabad, Karachi to In charge "Appna Ghar" Edhi Centre wherein he requested for handing over the "possession" of Humaira's to her brother Ali Abbas. Even in this letter there is no reference to Humaira's Nikah with Malik Moazzam Ghayas. These documents, according to the learned counsel clearly indicate that whatsoever the nature of the alleged Nikah of Moazzam Ghayas she in fact was not his wife, the registration of case vide F.I.R. No.601/98 in the afore referred circumstances is clearly malicious;
(v) that the so-called Nikah of Humaira with Moazzam Ghayas was not Nikah in the eyes of law as she was already married to Mehmood and that her thumb-impressions were obtained through force; that she never consented to it; that the "Nikah Khawan" shown in the video of the Nikah ceremony is Nazir Ahmed whereas on the Nikahnama Nikah Khawan is Maulvi Noor Muhammad; that as per the statement of Humaira Nikah ceremony was held somewhere in September, 1997 whereas Nikah Nama has been ante-dated and it was shown that the Nikah was performed on 14- 4-1997; that the said Nikah was registered in the Union Council on 28-7-1998 which proves that it was ante-dated with a view to make this Nikah prior in time to Humaira's genuine Nikah with Mehmood Butt to which she was a consenting party;
(vi) that Humaira's Nikah with Mehmood Butt was voluntarily performed and its date of performance and entry in the register is the same. Nikah Khawan and the witnesses have made statements not only before this Court but also before the Investigating Officer about the veracity of the said Nikah, therefore, it has greater credence than the Nikah Nama on which the prosecution wishes to rely.
(vii) In support of the afore referred submissions learned counsel for Humaira relied on the judgments reported as Muhammad Arshad v. Station House Officer and others (1997 PCr.LJ 928), Muhammad Sharif and 8 others v. The State and another (1997 SCMR 304), Jairam and 8 others v.
Jagdish and another (1980 PCr.LJ 243), Muhammad Bashir v. The State (1984 PCr.LJ 892) and Haji Imam Din v. S.H.O. And 4 others (1989 PCr.LJ 2016).
3. Pressing her prayer in Writ Petition No.1472/99 (wherein petitioner is Ms. Shahtaj Qazilbash, a humam right activist), learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the manner in which Humaira was arrested from Karachi by the Punjab Police despite the interim pre-arrest bail granted by the Court reflects mala fides on the part of respondents Nos.1 and 1-A i.e. Malik Muhammad Ashraf, Inspector/S.H.O. And Subah Sadiq, S.I., P.S. North Cantt. Lahore who have thereby committed cross contempt of this Court which warrants an action against them.
4. Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent Malik Muazzam Ghayas filed no written statement either in W.P. No.1472/99 or W.P. No.420/99 (wherein quashment of the F.I.R. Was sought) while opposing the prayer for quashment of the F.I.R. Submitted as under:--
(i) that Humaira petitioner by contracting second Nikah with Mehmood Butt in the presence of her earlier Nikah with Malik Moazzam Ghayas and having eloped with the former has crossed the limits of God, is guilty of offence under the Hudood Laws and, therefore, is not entitled to indulgence by this Court in extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
(ii) That the police did not go beyond the mandate of law as it merely investigated a case registered against Mehmood Butt and others who have been charged with serious offences. This Court, according to him, has jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings but it has to be guided by certain broad principles laid down by this Court as also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The quashment can Only be made if there is no evidence on record connecting the accused with the alleged offence or the prosecution launched is tainted with malice. The registration of a case is first step whereby the machinery of law is set into motion and if the story of abduction as contained in the F.I.R. Is not proved the police is well within its right to challan the accused in other offences which come to light. Humaira petitioner having contracted second Nikah with Mehmood Butt in the presence of the earlier Nikah, is guilty of an offence under the Hudood Laws and prima facie a case is made out against her and others. Learned counsel however, conceded to a Court query that only the Family Court can give a conclusive finding qua the validity of the conflicting Nikahnama and not the police.
' In support of the afore referred submissions, learned counsel for the respondent relied on the judgments reported as Asif Saigol and 2 others v. Federation of Pakistan through the Interior Secretary, Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad and 2 others (PLD 1998 Lahore 287), Mst. Ishrat Bibi v.
S.H.O. (1996 PCr.LJ 1019), Mst. Abida Perveen and another v. The State and 2 others (1997 PCr.LJ 880), Mst. Tahira Khatoon v. S.H.O., Factory Area, Sargodha (1998 PCr.LJ 1029), Qaisar Mahmood v.
Muhammad Shafi and another (PLD 1998 Lahore 72) and Lubna and another v. Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Lahore and another (PLD 1997 Lahore 186).
5. Ch. Ali Muhammad, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for Malik Abbas Khokhar (father of Huthaira) adopted the arguments of Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar, Advocate and added that there is no chance of compromise as she has crossed the limits of God.
6. Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali, the learned Advocate-General, Punjab who appeared on Court call submitted that in cases where disputed questions of fact are involved which warrant recording of evidence, this Court may not give a conclusive finding on the issues raised. He, however, added that this Court can give a tentative finding qua the validity of conflicting Nikahnamas. In this regard he relied on the judgments reported in Hafiz Abdul Waheed v. Miss Asma Jahangir and another (PLD 1997 Lahore 301) and Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal and others (PLD 1984 Supreme Court 95). On the Court query as to whether in the instant case the Investigating Officer can give a finding qua the validity or otherwise of the conflicting Nikahnamas, learned Advocate-General conceded that the Investigating Officer cannot and it is only the Family Court which has the conclusive jurisdiction. He, however, added that the police on the basis of allegations levelled and the material produced can challan the accused. Coming to the question of pre-arrest bail and the manner in which Humaira was apprehended from Karachi he submitted that Humaira had misused the concession of bail as she was fleeing abroad and although he would not defend the police officer who conducted the raid to apprehend her yet he would not attribute mala fides to him. On a Court query the Investigating Officer (Abdul Rauf Dogar, S.P., C.I.A.) after some hesitation conceded that as per his investigation the story of abduction as alleged in F.I.R. No.601/98 is false.
He further conceded that Nikah of Humaira with Mehmood Butt was registered in the relevant register the same day when the Nikah was performed i.e. On 16-5-1997 whereas in case of Malik Moazzam Ghayas's Nikah with Humaira it was performed on 14-4-1997 and was entered in the relevant register maintained by the concerned union council on 3-7-1998 i.e. After the lapse of more one year and two months. The Court further asked him as to whether he has made any entry of his opinion that the allegation of abduction as given in the F.I.R. Is false, the answer was in the negative and he gave no reason for not entering that finding in the case diary. The Court also asked him as to why the earlier case registered against Mehmood Butt vide F.I.R. No.524/98 P.S. North Cantt., Lahore was cancelled. He replied that the said case was cancelled as false on 29-12- 1998 as during the course of investigation it came to light that no girl by the name of Rabia was ever abducted and in fact it was Humaira who was abducted and that since the complainant Nazir Ahmed was friend of Malik Ali Abbas, a brother of Humaira, he got the case registered by mentioning a fake name of Rabia.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and haviAg gone through the precedent case-law relied upon I am of the view that following questions have been mooted in these petitions:-- "(i) Can this Court give a finding conclusive or interim qua the conflicting Nikah Namas relied upon by the parties if so, to what extent?
(ii) Whether Mst. Humaira was abducted as alleged in the F.I.R. No.601 of 1998, Police Station North Cantt., Lahore, if not, can this Court decide this question in these proceedings and quash the case registered vide the F.I.R. Referred to above?
(iii) Did respondents Nos.1 and 1-A i.e. Malik Muhammad Ashraf Inspector/S.H.O. And Subah Sadiq, S.I., P.S. North Cantt., Lahore acted malafidely in chasing and apprehending Humaira, Mehmood Butt and his mother, if so, are they liable to any action by this Court in these proceedings?
8. Learned counsel for Humaira has disputed the factum of her Nikah with Moazzam Ghayas by stressing that her Nikah with Mehmood Butt was earlier in time; that the second Nikah with Moazzam was void ab initio, that the thumb-impressions were obtained through coercion and the video prepared purported to be a Nikah ceremony was-actually an attempt to fabricate evidence against the earlier Nikah and there being no date of Rukhsati in it, it does not in any manner advance the case of respondent Moazzam Ghayas qua his claim of earlier Nikah with Humaira.
However, before entering into the said controversy it would be pertinent to understand the concept of "consent" and the Institution of Marriage in Islam.
9. It is a settled proposition of law that in Islam a sui juris woman can contract' Nikah of her own free will and a Nikah performed under coercion is no Nikah in law. Instances are not lacking from Hadith and the Islamic history that the consent of a sui juris woman was held to be a sine qua non for a valid marriage in absence of which marriage was declared void. In Tesrul Bari Sharah Sahi Bokhari by Allama Waheeduz Zaman published by Amjad Academy, Lahore at page 113 a case is quoted wherein a woman appearing before the Holy Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) complained that her marriage (Nikah) had been performed against her consent. The Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) annulled the marriage. The ratio laid down in Mohyuddin v. Khadija Bibi (41 Bombay LR 1020) is based on the afore referred command of the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.): Syed Ameer Ali, a celebrated Islamic Jurist in his book "The Spirit of Islam" goes on to say that even a King cannot marry his daughter without her consent.
' Another Muslim Scholar Nawab A.M.F. Abdur Rehman in his book "Institutes of Mussalman Law" which is based on Qadri Pasha Mussalman Codes, refers to Article 53 wherein mode of obtaining consent has been highlighted and it stipulates that when a girl weeps with sobs at the time of marriage it reflects lack of consent.
' Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rehman in his book "A Code of Muslim Personal Law" at page 67 says that "the second condition for constituting a marriage contract is the consent of the parties to the marriage contract. Marriage contract without the consent of parties is not valid".
' The term "consent" means a conscious expression of one's desire without any external intimidation or coercion. In Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law consent has been defined "Consent supposes three things--a physical power, a mental power, and a free and serious use of them". Similarly in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary (Fifth Edition Volume 1) consent has been defined as "Consent is an act of reason, accompanied with deliberation, the mind weighing as in a balance, the good and evil on each side". In the same dictionary it is defined as "It seems to be clear, that approbation subsequent to a marriage is not in general, a sufficient compliance with a condition requiring 'consent', but Lord Hardwick, in Burleton v. Humfrey, Amb. 256, took a distinction between the words 'consent' and 'approbation', holding the latter to admit subsequent approval, where coupled with the former disjunctively, but he decided the case principally on .Another ground--and in regard to the admission of subsequent consent the authority of the case has been questioned".
10. In situations where consent to a marriage is in dispute and a challenge is thrown to a Nikahnama which is being owned by a man and a woman who claim to he husband and a wife then the presumption of truth attaches to the Nikah Nama which is being acknowledged by both the spouses and not by the intervener. In Arif Hussain and Mst. Azra Perveen v. The State PLD 1982 FSC 42 the Court acquitted man and a woman who claimed to be husband and a wife and the only evidence led by them was their own statements and the statement of Nikah Khawan. The complainant in that case was father of the girl. Similarly in Mst. Nasreen Akhtar v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 2016 the claim of a man and a woman being husband and wife and the Nikah Nama on the police file was found to be a complete defence and both were acquitted. In Hafiz Abdul Waheed v.
Ms. Asma Jahangir and another PLD 1997 Lah. 3021) a Full Bench of this Court allowed a sui juris girl to go with the husband of her choice notwithstanding the fact that the father was complainant.
Marriage with woman during the subsistence of her earlier marriage with some other man is illegal and void. Section 34 of the "Code of Muslim Personal Law" specifically caters to this situation. In a judgment reported in ILR 15 Allahabad page 396, a Nikah during the subsistence of an early Nikah was declared as void.
11. The material brought on record if examined in the light of the afore-referred principles of the Islamic Jurisprudence and the precedent case-law would prima facie indicate as follows:-- "(a) that as per the "Parat Nikah" (the document which is prepared when marriage takes place) and the register maintained for registration of Nikahs, the Nikah of Humaria with Mehmood Butt was performed on 16-5-1997 and is entered the same day at Serial No.414 of Register Nikah Halqa No.72, Model Town Lahore. Witnesses to the said Nikah including the Nikah Khawan have not only testified to the said fact before this Court but also before the Investigating Officer. As against the afore-referred Nikah Nama which admittedly is being owned by Mst. Humaira and Mehmood Butt the counter Nikah evidencing Moazzam Ghayas's Nikah with Mst. Humaira has following aspect which prima facie create a doubt in its authenticity of being prior in time or having been performed with Mst. Humaira's consent:--
(i) this Nikah as claimed by Moazzam Ghayas complainant was performed on 14-4-1997 but there is no corresponding entry in the Nikah Register of the said Union Council on the said date. In fact the registration of Nikah is one year and two months latter in time i.e. 3-7-1998 at Serial No.122, Union Council, Piplipahar;
(ii) a video film of the afore-referred ceremony was produced by Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar, Advocate and on his request it was seen in the Chamber in the presence of learned counsel for both the parties, Humaira and the Investigating Officer. Humaira was seen weeping and sobbing during the ceremony and as per his statement before this Court her sobs and cries could be heard by the persons sitting around her. On a Court query she explained that her cries and sobs were manifestation of her lack of consent in the performance of Nikah.. This aspect of her statement was not challenged by the learned counsel for the respondent. When a woman cries and sobs as per Article 53 of the. Institutes of Mussalman Law referred to above, it reflects lack of consent on her part. She was not wearing any bridal jewellry and Moazzam Ghayas also appeared to be tense and without head-cover (Sehra) which is generally worn by the bridegrooms. The person who is shown to be performing Nikah is admittedly Maulvi Nazir Ahmad whereas in Nikah Register the Nikah is supposed to have been performed by Qari Noor Muhammad whose signatures are there on the Nikah Register. This fact was admitted even by the Investigating Officer present in Court. The "Nikah Khawan" in the video never signed the Nikah Nama;
(iii) there is no scene in the video showing Humaira putting her thumb-impressions in token of her consent;
(iv) according to Humaira her thumb-impressions were forcibly obtained prior to the ceremony under threat and coercion and she never signed the Nikah Nama. But the prosecution claims that the Nikah Nama which has been placed on record bears her signatures. According to the Investigating Officer he obtained her twenty-seven specimen signatures and a copy of which has been on record as Mark-A. This Court also directed her to give her specimen signatures which she did which have been placed on record as Mark-B. On a perusal of her specimen signatures with those of the signatures on the Nikah Nama there is apparent dissimilarity not only in , spelling but also otherwise. This question was specifically put to Mr.M. Iqbal Ithichi, Assistant Advocate-General who conceded about the apparent dissimilarity but suggested that the matter may be referred to the Handwriting Expert;
(v) there is no scene in the video of her departure from her parents' house indicating 'Rukhsati'. No bridal room is shown to show husband and wife sitting together. This prima facie endorses her contention that no 'Rukhsati' took place as they could not persuade her to do that. According to her she had told her parents in clear terms that she was already married to Mehmood Butt and that even a copy of the Nikah Nama dated 16-5-1997 was given to her father through one of his friends named Azam but despite that according to her a drama was arranged to show her Nikah with Moazzam Ghayas and when at a latter stage she was being forced for a formal ceremony of 'Rukhsati' she left the aouse and joined her husband Mehmood Butt whereafter she was chased and a case was registered quashment of which is sought.
(vi) during the video screening she had challenged Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachar, Advocate/learned counsel for Moazzam Ghayas to produce any Invitation Card to show any reception held by the bridegroom (Valima Reception) to which learned counsel had no answer.
Prima facie, it does not appeal to reason that the marriage of the only daughter of a Member of the Provincial Assembly who is a local landlord should be held in such a simple manner without any invitation card, without the bride wearing any bridal dress or jewellery, a bridegroom without head- cover (Sehra) and a tension writ-large on his face and again it is surprising that the entry of the Nikah of the daughter of such a local political high-up should not be entered in the relevant register for a period of one year and two months.
(b) As Mst. Humaira and Mehmood Butt have owned Nikah Nama dated 16-5-1997, a presumption of valid marriage would arise in their favour in view of section 268(c) of Mohammadan Law (by D.F.
Mulla) as also in view of the law laid down by the Federal Shariat Court in Arif Hussain and Azra Perveen v. The State PLD 1982 FSC 42 which in terms of Article 203-GG of the Constitution is binding.
If Moazzam Ghayas wishes to throw a challenge he has to go to the Court of plenary jurisdiction i.e. The Family Court to have a conclusive finding.
(c) Writ Petition No.420 of 1999 was admitted to regular hearing and learned counsel for Moazzam Ghayas while accepting its notice undertook to file written statement/reply. In despondence to a challenge thrown by Mst. Humaira that Moazzam should appear to vouchsafe for his claim to be her husband, his learned counsel agreed that he will appear on the next date but neither the written statement was filed nor Moazzam Ghayas ever appeared to testify on Oath about the factum of Nikah. Learned counsel for the respondent even went to the extent of saying that he was present in Court premises but he prayed that he be excused from his appearance in Court. I was surprised at the stand taken by the learned counsel. However, as the learned counsel had not even filed written statement this Court was of the view, that let the law take its own course. If a party chooses not to file a written statement then the averments made in the petition are admitted to be true."
' In Muhammad Rashid v. Collector etc. PLD 1978 Lahore 1370 arguments of the counsel for the respondent were not even entertained in absence of a written statement or a counter-affidavit and the writ was allowed. The ratio laid down in the following case-law is to the same effect:--
(i) Haji Wali Muhammad v. M.B.R. (PLD 1984 Quetta 131) a DB Judgment, and
(ii) Wahiduddin Khan v. Deputy Commissioner (PLD 1964 Peshawar 104) a D.B. Judgment.
' In the instant case the non-submission of the written statement and a counter-affidavit would mean that the averments made in the petition stand prima facie proved.
12. Coming to the question of quashment of the F.I.R., this Court is of the view that there is no cavil to the proposition that the function of Court and police are complementary and are not overlapping and that each institution should ordinarily remain within the parameters of its own domain.
However, in Shahnaz Begum v. The Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan and another PLD 1971 SC 677 which was in fact reiteration of the ratio laid down in Emperor v. Kh. Nazir Ahmed (AIR 1945 PC 18), at page 692, it was observed that "if an investigation is launched mala fide or is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of the investigating agencies concerned then it may be possible for the action of the investigating agencies to be corrected by a proper proceeding either under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962 or under the provisions of section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if the applicant is in the later case in detention, but not by invoking the inherent power under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code".
' In Muhammad Hanif and others v. Mukarram Khan and others (PLD 1996 Lahore 58) which is a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in which it was laid down that "High Court proceeding under Article 199 of the Constitution or under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Should ordinarily not pass orders in matter exclusively preserved for the Police Department".
' The ratio laid down in the afore referred judgment is that the High Court while proceeding under section 561-A Cr.P.C. Can only quash proceedings in a Court of law and would not ordinarily interfere in the police investigation. However, sitting in the Constitutional jurisdiction this Court has power to interfere where the mala fide is apparent on record or where there is total lack of jurisdiction to .Proceed. The precedent case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar, Advocate is distinguishable. In Mst. Tahira Khatoon v. S.H.O., Factory Area, Sargodha (1998 PCr.LJ 1029) the observation made was "hence simply on the statement of the petitioner that the F.I.R. No.173 of 1997 is mala fide and collusive, the same cannot be quashed at this stage". Reliance in this judgment was placed on Ahmed Saeed v.
State (1996 SCMR 186) in which case the moot point was whether the High Court could quash F.I.R.
On the ground of mala fide under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. And it was laid down that "we are afraid that the High Court under section 56I-A. Cr.P.C. Could not quash F.I.R. On the ground of mala fide or on the ground that the F.I.R. Discloses civil liability".
' In Mst. Abida Perveen and another v. The State and 2 others (1997 PCr.LJ 880) this Court did not quash F.I.R. Under Article 199 of the Constitution because, firstly, there was no allegation of mala fides and, secondly, it was observed "the Nikahnama produced as Annexure B along with this petition shows that age of the bride as 20 years whereas the age of bridegroom is not given at all.
Likewise there was no witness or Wakil from the side of the bride as would appear from columns Nos.7 and 8 of Nikahnama which have been left blank".
' Yet another judgment of this Court relied upon by respondent's learned counsel is Qaisar Mahmood v. Muhammad Shafi and another (PLD 1998 Lahore 72) in which quashment in a Hudood case was refused where petitioner husband had claimed valid marriage as a defence. In the said case the Court while taking note of certain infirmities in Nikahnama was persuaded not to grant relief in the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court and it was observed that "it is not unknown that no Muslim marriage is valid without at least two persons witnessing the same but Column No.11 which is meant for the witnesses of the marriage lies blank meaning thereby that there were no witnesses of this alleged marriage.
' Zamir Hussain v. Badshah and 2 others (1998 PCr.LJ 883) would also not be relevant as in the said case the main consideration which weighed with the Court in refusing quashment was that no material was brought on record contrary to the prosecution story as given in the F.I.R. To indicate that the F.I.R. Was registered for mala fide reasons".
' In Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal (PLD 1984 Supreme Court 95) the facts were distinguishable. In that case the accused allegedly abducted complainant's 14 years old daughter and committed rape with her. During trial he pleaded valid Nikah as defence. The victim girl did not support him and stated that Nikah was under coercion. Trial Court convicted the accused, Federal Shariat Court acquitted him and the Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the case with the observation to record statement of Nikah Khawan and other witnesses who were not examined by the trial Court earlier.
13. However, this Court as also the Hon'ble Supreme Court have always interfered even at the investigation stage where to promote the ends of justice or the mala fide is manifest on record and there is material on record to suggest that the offences alleged are prima facie not attracted.
' In Syed Fayyaz Hussain Hamdani v. The State (1982 PCr.LJ 726) this Court quashed the criminal proceedings when there were documents brought on record to suggest that the case registered was not tenable in law.
' In Mst. Sabai and Muhammad Sher v. The State (1988 PCr.LJ 1576) F.I.R. Was quashed when there was strong material on record to indicate that the petitioners were husband and wife and in the said case the statement of the alleged wife and the affidavit of Nikah Registrar were found sufficient to quash the case registered.
' In Mst. Naseer Khatoon v. The S.H.O., Police Station City, Mianwali and another (1994 PCr.LJ 1111) the F.I.R. In Hudood case was quashed as the S.H.O. Stated that the petitioners were husband and wife.
' In Byram D. Avari etc. v. The State (PLD 1989 Pesh. 145) a Division Bench judgment of the Peshawar High Court, F.I.R. Was quashed as it was found that 'in other words the Officer In charge of the Police Station has to apply his mind to the fact narrated to him and in case he finds that such a narration discloses an offence only then he shall register a case. The investigation which follows the registration of the case must have its roots in the alleged commission of an offence. The police report and the subsequent investigation launched thereto without the commission of an offence would obviously fall outside the competence of the authorities concerned. In a given circumstance, as in this case, it may obviously smack of mala fides as well. As such, the case registered against the petitioners and the subsequent warrant of arrest issued by respondent No..4 are beyond the competence of the authorities concerned and mala fide in law as stated above".
' In Muhammad Arshad v. Station House Officer and others (1997 PCr.LJ 928) F.I.R. Was quashed as it was found that the petitioners were husband and wife, at page 932 it was observed "according to Mulla a boy or girl who had attained puberty is at liberty to marry any one he or she likes and the guardian has no right to interfere. Further, according to presumption of marriage detailed in section 268 (c) of the Muhammadan Law, the fact of acknowledgement by the man or the woman as his wife is accepted as valid marriage".
' In Anwar Ahmad Khan v. The State and another 1996 SCMR 24 while dilating the powers of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan the Hon'ble Supreme Court at page 36, observed "it is well-settled principle that where investigation is mala fide or without jurisdiction, the High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is competent to correct such proceedings and pass necessary order to ensure justice and fair play.
The investigating authorities do not have the entire and total authority of running investigation according to their whims".
14. The afore referred resume of the precedent case-law would show that this Court has ample powers in the Constitutional jurisdiction to interfere where there is material on record to show that the investigation launched demonstrates either malice in law or fact. In the instant case there are following features which lend strong credence to the allegations of mala fides levelled against the police and State functionaries:--
(i) The police had acted beyond its lawful mandate in its drive to exert pressure on Mehmood Butt, his mother, his brother so that he is separated from Humaira with whom there was a Nikah on record. Initially a case vide F.I.R. No. 524 of 1998 was registered on 4-11-1998 at Police Station North Cantt., Lahore though on the statement of one Nazir Ahmad who alleged that Mehmood Butt and Naeem Butt had abducted his niece Mst. Rabia alias Nanni aged 18 years from Fortress Stadium, Lahore on the evening of 2-11-1998 in a Pajero vehicle bearing No.LHY/8301. This case was found to be false and it is conceded before this Court that it was registered to arrest Humaira and Mehmood.
(ii) A perusal of the case diary of F.I.R. No.524 of 1998 indicates that S.-I. Subah Sadiq of Police Station North Cantt., Lahore secured permission from his higher officers to visit Karachi on 28-11- 1998 to effect the arrest of "Rabia". On 7-11-1998, S.P. Cantt., Lahore wrote a letter to S.S.P., Lahore to bring the names of Mehmood Butt, Mst. Zeb Naseem (mother of Mehmood Butt), Naeem Butt and Naseem Butt on the Exit Control List as it was alleged that they had abducted complainant's niece Rabia and they were planning to flee abroad. The S.S.P., Lahore in turn wrote a letter to the District Magistrate, Lahore with the same request (No.20925 dated 7-11-1998) and the District Magistrate, it seems, wrote a letter to the Secretary Interior but the final order passed by the Secretary Interior has not been produced before this Court. Statements of complainant Nazir Ahmad's wife and two other witnesses were also recorded about the abduction of Rabia under section 161, Cr.P.C. On 29- 11-1998 a police party headed by S.-I. Subah Sadiq of P.S. North Cantt. Lahore went to Karachi and the Case Diary indicated that Ali Abbas, a brother of Humaira, was also accompanying him and they were supposedly in search of abductee, namely, Rabia alias Nanni raids were conducted by the police on Mehmood Butt's house. Edhi Centre was contacted. On 7-11-1998 there is an entry in the case diary that S.-I. Subah Sadiq came to know through Press that the real name of Rabia alias Nanni was Humaria and on 17-12-1998 there is an entry that as per the Newspaper Report the abductee is Humaira Abbas and her father is Muhammad Abbas Khokhar, M.P.A. Is to be contacted and that despite efforts made he could not be contacted. The afore referred entries were dishonest attempt to camouflage the action taken by the local police in going all the way to Karachi and in raiding the Edhi Centre where Humaira had got shelter. It was widely reported in the Press and never denied by the Punjab Police: A News clipping of the "Daily Dawn", Karachi dated 1-12-1998 (Annexure A) reads as under:-- "A heavy contingent of police, headed by a D.S.P. And also comprising officials of the Punjab Police, on Tuesday stormed into the Edhi Home at Sohrab Goth, and took away a young married woman who had taken refuge there, Edhi sources said.
' Humaira Mehmood, 28 years old daughter of a ruling P.M.L. M.P.A. From Okara, Abbas Khokhar, who had taken shelter in the Edhi's Home on November, 27 apprehending that her family would kill her.
' She is believed to have been flown to Lahore in the evening by a P.I.A. Flight by her brother, Ali Abbas, who also accompanied the police party during the raid on the Edhi's Home around 2-15 p.m.
' The Edhi sources said Humaira, who had married Mehmood Butt had approached the Home on the advice of her husband who was in hiding since they left Lahore about a month ago.
' Eye-witnesses said several dozens of passersby crowded the Edhi's Home as the policemen, who had come in at least eight mobiles, dragged out the woman who besought the policemen not to take her away. They will kill me', she continued to cry hysterically till she was thrown into a mobile van, they said.
' When contacted, the D.I.-G. Of Karachi told Dawn that the raid was conducted in accordance with the law and the woman had left her house after estranged relations with her parents."
' Prior to the raid Ali Abbas made an entry in the Police Station Nazimabad, Karachi (Vide Rapat No.23 dated 1.12-1998) that his sister Humaira Abbas had left the house after having quarrel with her mother; that she is lodged in Edhi Centre and that he be given assistance to recover her (Annexure E in Criminal Miscellaneous No.4043/99). A similar request was made by D.S.P., Nazimabad vide his letter dated addressed to the In charge Edhi Centre (Annexure F). Meanwhile a Woman Right Activist took up the matter with the Governor Sindh who intervened in the matter, Humaira was got released from Ali Abbas, her brother, and she was lodged in Darul Amaan by police. The matter was taken up before the Hon'ble Sindh High Court, Karachi in C.P. No.2003 of 1998 and Humaira was allowed io remain in Darul Amaan till further orders. In the report submitted by D.S.P., Nazimabad (Mark E) petitioner's story stands endorsed but the said police officer has given a twisted version. In para. 4 he submitted that "Ali Abbas, the real brother of noted missing girl, submitted copy of station diary entry No.23 of P.S., Nazimabad, letter of undersigned noted above to the Incharge Edhi Home, Karachi and also introduced himself where In charge Edhi Home allowed to meet him with his noted sister (Humaira). After proceeding all formalities, the authorities of Edhi Home, Karachi handed over the possession of Mst. Humaira to her real brother Ali Abbas. Ali Abbas filled the requisite form of Edhi Home, and also deposited his NIC (photocopy) with Incharge Edhi Home". In para. 6 he stated "Ali Abbas the real brother noted missing girl taken over the possession of his sister Humaira from Edhi Home put due to non-compromised in-between both the noted brother and sister (Ali Abbas and Humaira) the S.D.M., District Central Karachi recorded her statement and allowed her to stay at Darul Amaan, Karachi".
(iii) A petition for pre-arrest bail was moved (Criminal Miscellaneous No.40-B/99) and this Court vide order dated 5-1-1999 allowed her interim pre-arrest bail, her appearance before the Court dispensed with till the next date as it was submitted by the learned counsel that her custody being regulated by an order of the Division Bench of Sindh High Court, Karachi in the aforereferred case.
In the meanwhile, the Sindh High Court on an application made by Mst. Humaira allowed her to leave Darul Amaan and live at a place of her choice and to appear before this Court on 3-2-1999 for which date Criminal Miscellaneous No.40-B/99 was fixed before this Court. However, notwithstanding the bail granting order Mst. Humaira and Mehmood Butt were arrested from Karachi Airport whereafter a Women Right Activist filed W.P. No.1472/99 wherein it was apprehended that Humaira's life was in danger and this Court directed the Inspector-General of Punjab Police to ensure that Humaira Mehmood is produced before this Court on 1-2-1999. It was further directed that the I.G.P. Shall be personally responsible for her safety. On the said date Mst.
Humaira appeared and narrated the whole story about her forcible abduction from Edhi Centre, about intervention by the Governor Sindh, about Sindh High Court's order, about her subsequent arrest, the beating given to her and Mehmood Butt in front of several people at the Karachi Airport, the manner in which they were dragged and were taken in a van to an unknown destination followed by her real brother Ali Abbas. In the statement made before this Court Mst. Humaira and Mehmood Butt both apprehended danger to their lives. Statement of Subah Sadiq was also recorded and in flagrant attempt to conceal the facts he stated "I did go to Edhi Centre to inquire about Rabia alias Nanni but not to arrest Humaira. I did not even see Mst. Humaira there. This was on 1-12-1998". His close liaison with Humaira's brother is manifest from his answer made to a Court query when he said "I was carrying a mobile telephone of Ali Abbas, a brother of Mst. Humaira on which I received a call from CIA Staff, Karachi that Mst. Humaira Mehmood and Mehmood Butt were planning to leave country. Pursuant to the afore-referred call I reached Karachi Airport and found a D.S.P. Of C.I.A. Staff and an Inspector, namely, Raza Hussain already present there. I effected the arrest of Mst. Humaira Mehmood and Mehmood Butt and her mother Mst. Zeb Naseem who is about fifty years ago"..
' I made an entry qua the arrest of the afore referred persons in the Daily Diary of Police Station Karachi Airport, however, I had made no entry about their arrest in the Case Diary of the case registered vide F.I.R. No.601/98 dated 25-12-1998 PS North Cantt.,Lahore During the period that the afore referred accused persons remained in my custody I did not record statement of any one of them. When I went to Karachi to appear before the Sindh High Court it was in my knowledge that this Court had granted pre-arrest bail to Humaira in Criminal Miscellaneous No.40-B/99".
15. The afore referred narration of events would show that S.-I. Subah Sadiq of Punjab Police had gone twice to Karachi to effect Humaira's arrest and in the company of her brother Ali Abbas. On 30-11-1998 they raided Edhi Centre Karachi, forcibly took her out at a time when no case qua her abduction had been registered and it was under the garb of F.I.R. No.524/98 dated 4-11-1998 P.S. North Cantt., Lahore that the entire action was taken. However, when they got exposed at Karachi a case was got registered on 25-12-1998 in the same police station on the statement of Moazzam Ghayas who claimed to be the husband of Humaira and who till 25-12-1998 did not figure anywhere in the proceedings initiated by the local police to effect arrest of Mehmood Butt and Humaira vide F.I.R. No.601/98 dated 25-12-1998. The case registered vide F.I.R. No.524/98 was cancelled on 29-12-1998 as it was found that Nazir Ahmad complainant had falsely reported about the abduction of Rabia alias Nanni as his niece and in fact he wanted to help his friend Malik Abbas Khokhar whose daughter had been abducted.
16. The case registered vide F.I.R. No.601/98 dated 25-12-1998 P.S. North Cantt., Lahore is mala fide, on the face of it as it was registered after a delay of two months of the alleged occurrence of abduction. How can a husband keep quiet for two months over abduction of his wife particularly when the said wife (Humaira) happens to be the only daughter of a sitting M.P.A. Belonging to the ruling party and is the real cousin of Moazzam Ghayas. The Investigating Officer (Abdul Rauf Dogar, S.P., C.I.A., Lahore) gave no finding about the veracity of the story given in F.I.R. No.601/98 and it was only on the query made by this Court that he gave his finding in Court on 10-2-1999 that the version given in the F.I.R. Qua abduction of Humaira was false and that Humaira as a matter of fact had left her house of her own choice. Humaira alleged in open Court that the Investigating Officer had told him that if she was his daughter he would have been killed her. Her learned counsel Miss Hina Jilani, Advocate alleged that the statements of Nikah witnesses were not being recorded correctly. On a direction of this Court the Investigating Officer was made to read out the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Of Shahbaz who is Witness of Nikah who was present in Court and the witness alleged that this was not his correct version and there has been interpolations in the statement. When I directed him to record his statement afresh, learned counsel for the respondent Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar, Advocate objected that the Court cannot direct the Investigating Officer to record the statement of a witness afresh. I overruled the objection. However, to allay the apprehension of the witness I directed him to place on record his affidavit and give a copy of the same to the Investigating Officer. On the following day the Nikah Khawan appeared and stated on Oath that he had been threatened by the police not to bring out the correct version and not to state that he had performed the Nikah of Humaira with Mehmood Butt. This witness apprehended danger to his life. His statement was recorded in Court and the Investigating Officer was directed to record his statement outside the Court as well. The Investigating Officer appeared, before this Court on 3-2-1999, 8-2-1999, 9-2-1999, 10-2-1999 and 11-2-1999 but expressed his inability to trace out either Nikah Khawan or the Registrar. It was only on the direction of this Court that the learned Advocate-General, Punjab after efforts produced the Nikah Registrar along with the Nikah Register evidencing Nikah Humaira with Mehmood Butt which indicated that the Nikah was performed the same day when it was entered in the relevant register at Serial No.414 on 16-5-1997 whereas the alleged Nikah of Moazzam Ghayas complainant-respondent with Humaira was purported to have been performed on 14-4-1997 but his entry in the register is after one year and two months.
17. This Court would not have ordinarily exercised jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to quash the criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to the registration of the afore referred case but in face of the bias and the mala fide shown by the police officials who handled this case not only at the S.I./S.H.O. Level but at the S.S.P. Level and the S.P., C.I.A. Level I am of the view that any restraint at this stage would not only be unjust but would tantamount to abdication of the powers vested in this Court to put a check on the State functionaries who abuse their lawful duty to help a particular individual and promote their personal interests. Besides the mala fides referred to above it has clearly been brought on record, rather conceded by the police that the occurrence alleged in F.I.R.
No.601/98 P.S., North Cantt., Lahore is false. Even on the question of conflicting Nikahs the weights of material brought on record tilts in favour of Humaira and Mehmood Butt and in absence of a conclusive finding of a Family Court against this marriage no prosecution can be launched in the peculiar facts of this case.
18. Coming to the role of the State functionaries in this case I find that the police officials who handled this case passed orders and acted in a manner which betrayed total disregard of law of the land and mandate of their calling. Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan guarantees that everybody shall be treated strictly in accordance with law. Article 35 of the Constitution provides that the State shall protect the marriage, the family, the mother and the child. As Member of the International Comity of Nations we must respect the International Instruments of Human Rights to which we are a party.
19. Pakistan is a Member of United Nations and is signatory to the "Convention on the Elmination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women" which in its Article 16 enjoins all the member states as under:- "1. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate .Discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations and in particular shall ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women:--
(a) the sane right to enter into marriage;
(b) the same right freely to choose a spouse and to enter into marriage only with their free and full consent;
(c) the same rights and responsibilities during marriage and at its dissolution."
' At a Conference attended by representatives of all the Islamic countries including Pakistan a Resolution was adopted which is known as Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam dated 5th August 1990 (Encyclopaedia of Human Rights by Edward Lawson, 2nd Edition at page 176) stipulates as under:-- "Article 5.--(a) The family is the foundation of society, and marriage is the basis of its formation.
Men and women have the right to marriage, and no restrictions stemming from race, colour or nationality shall prevent them from enjoying this right.
(b) Society and the State shall remove all obstacles to marriage and shall facilitate marital procedure. They shall ensure family protection and welfare. "
"Article 6.--(a) Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has rights to enjoy as well as duties to perform; she has her own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name and lineage.
(b) The husband is responsible for the support and welfare of the family."
19. The police officials are guardians of the lives, liberties and the honour of the citizens. They owe their place in society to the taxes which are paid by the citizens. If these guards become poachers then no society and no State can have even a semblance of human rights and rule of law. It is not possible for this Court to enter into a detailed inquiry or fix liability of the wrongs done and violations made. However, S.I. Subah Sadiq has confessed before this Court that he went to Karachi to arrest Rabia alias Nanni (a fake and non-existent person) though he tried to hide the real purpose that it was Mst. Humaira whom he wanted to arrest on 30-11-1998 but the case diary and the Press clipping belie his stand. He conceded that he arrested Humaira and Mehmood on 29-1- 1999 and brought them to Lahore and that he was aware that Humaira was on pre arrest bail granted by this Court. He was party to the manner in which both of them were beaten at the Karachi Airport, they were put under a restraint and were being taken to an unknown place, their arrest was not shown even in the case diary which lends credence to the allegations levelled by Humaira and Mehmood Butt that they could have been done to death had this Court not intervened.
20. At a socio-moral plane the case had certain disconcerting overtones. Humaira was to be given in marriage to Moazzam in exchange of the latter's sister who was married to Humaria's brother. On the one hand there was anguish and pain of a father whose daughter had rebelled and refused to marry a person of his choice and had left her hearth and home to join someone with whom she had contracted marriage. The father called it a sinful act and was not prepared to accept her under any circumstances. On the other hand there was a girl in distress, who lost prime of her youth, waiting for a parental permission to join a husband of her choice. She was in a critical dilemma i.e. Of facing the social consequence of going back to a family fold where she stood eternally stigmatized or to go back with Mehmood whom she stood married to. The former course was full of tension, uncertainty and carried a death threat whereas in the later course although there was a death threat yet it meant a fulfilment of her desire, where she dreamt of security and if she survived the death threat she hoped for an ultimate release from the high walls of a feudal boundage. She chose the later course and wanted the society to accept it. Perhaps she was not asking for too much at this age of her life but she was refused. On disclosure of her marriage she was beaten up, taken to the Surgical theatre of a Governmental-run hospital, her entire body was bandaged and was detained there for a month but she persevered. As per her perception a mock drama of her marriage with Moazzam Ghayas was staged where arranged (sic) where she cried and sobbed but the parents could not persuade her to join him. No Rukhsati was performed and when they tried to force her she left the house. She was chased, harassed, abused, beaten and disgraced. This treatment was meted out to the only daughter of a father and at later's behest and the real brother spear-headed it.
21. As Muslims we loudly proclaim our commitment to the lofty ideals of an Islamic Ideology. The advent of Islam was a milestone in human civilization. It came at a time when women were treated as serfs and chattel. Instances were not lacking when men used to bury their daughters alive. It was Islam which declared equality between a man and a woman. In matters of marriage a woman was given equal right to choose her life partner. After obtaining the age of puberty she could exercise her option and choice. Unfortunately, in our practical lives we are influenced by a host of other prejudices bequeathed by history, tradition and feudalism. The self-righteousness demonstrated by the respondents in calling her "adulterous" the manner in which she was hunted like a prey and the way the State functionaries become partners in a feudal vendetta notwithstanding the mandate of their office in getting their pound of flesh, reminded the Court of George Bernard Shaw's criticism of Englishmen in his Drama, "The man of Destiny", he said: "There is nothing so bad or so good that you will not find Englishman doing; but you will never find an Englishman in the wrong. He does everything on principle. He fights you on patriotic principles; he robs you on business principles; he enslaves you on imperial principles."
22. Behind the evangelistic facade there was a certain culture at play. It is that culture which needs to be tamed by law and an objective understanding of the Islamic values. Let us do a little self- accountability and little soul searching both individually and collectively. Let there be no contradiction in our thoughts and actions. Male chauvinism, feudal bias and compulsions of a conceited ego should not be confused with Islamic values. An enlightened approach is called for otherwise an obsecurantism in this field may break the social fabric.
23. For what has been discussed above I hold and direct as under:--
(i) That the material brought on record shows that the case registered vide F .I.R. No.601 of 1998 dated 25-12-1998 under sections 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) and 380, P.P.C. P.S. North Cantt., Lahore is false as no occurrence of the kind alleged ever took place. Prima facie the Nikah of Humaira with Mehmood is valid and no prosecution under the Hudood Laws can be initiated without a conclusive finding of a Family Court against the Nikah in question. The case registered and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto reflect mala fides, those are, therefore, of no legal effect and are hereby quashed;
(ii) the documents placed on record, the statements of petitioner Humaira and the witnesses of Nikah including the Nikah Khawan, the entries made in the Nikah Registers and the video film produced before this Court on behalf of the complainant, prima facie lead to the conclusion that Humaira's Nikah with Mehmood was prior in time. The later Nikah, during the subsistence of the earlier one and lacking her consent is void in Islam. Even otherwise as both the spouses have acknowledged the Nikah dated 16-5-1997 a presumption of truth is attached to it under the law;
(iii) by lying before this Court that he had gone to Karachi to effect the arrest of Rabia alias Nanni (a fake person) and not Humaira in the last week of November, 1998 and by making a confession before this Court that in the first week of January, 1999, he arrested Humaira from Karachi notwithstanding the pre-arrest bail granted to her by this Court, Subah Sadiq, S.-I. Obstructed the process of justice and thereby committed a gross contempt of this Court. He is, therefore, convicted under section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act and sentenced to one month's S.I. On two counts and a fine of Rs.5,000 (Rupees five thousand only) on two counts in default whereof he shall further undergo S.I. For fifteen days on each count. The sentences shall run concurrently. He shall be lodged in District Jail, Lahore to serve the sentence.
(iv) The conduct of some of the police officials connected with the case including the present Investigating Officer needs scrutiny. The Inspector-General of Police, Punjab shall depute an officer not below the rank of a D.J.-G. To proceed against them departmentally.
(v) In view of the serious allegations levelled by Mst. Humaira that when her Nikah with Mehmood Butt was brought to light she was beaten, tortured and taken to the Services Hospital, Lahore, bandaged and kept there in confinement for a period of one month. The Medical Superintendent of Services Hospital, Lahore is directed to inquire into the matter and proceed against the delinquent officials in accordance with law.
(vi) Photostat copy of the entire files of case F.I.Rs. No.524 of 1998 and No.601 of 1998 of P.S. North Cantt., Lahore shall be retained on the record and the original shall be returned to the Investigating Officer. The video film (Mark-C) is also being retained. The original Passport of Mehmood Butt impounded by this Court's order dated 1-2-1999 shall be returned to him forthwith.