' Through this Revision Petition under sections 435/436/439, Cr.P.C. The petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 29-3-2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal whereby application of the petitioner for registration of case against respondent No.3 and other accused about abduction of her son Asif Ali has been dismissed.
2. The petitioner claims that her son Asif Ali was abducted by respondent No.3 Akbar Ali but the case was not registered on her application, and she filed petition before the leaned Sessions Judge which was entrusted to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal who vide order dated 17-2- 2004 directed respondent No.2 to record the statement of the petitioner under section, 154, Cr.P.C.
And if any cognizable case was made out to proceed strictly in accordance with law. According to the petitioner in spite of the direction issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge statement of the petitioner was not recorded and ultimately application of the petitioner after receipt of the police report has been dismissed through the impugned order dated 29-3-2004.
3. It is contended that in spite of that cognizable case was made out the S.H.O. Had not recorded the statement of the petitioner under section 154, Cr.P.C. Although direction was made by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal and the application has been dismissed merely on the ground that the allegation was levelled against Asif Ali son of the petitioner that he had in fact abducted Mst. Fareeda Iqbal who is his maternal aunt and on the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal dated 29-3-2004, F.I.R. No.88 of 2004 has been registered at the instance of Mst.
Fareeda Iqbal against Asif Ali son of the petitioner. Learned counsel contends that since cognizable offence was made out from the contents of her application moved before the learned Additional Sessions Judge the police was bound to register the case.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the contents of this petition. The subsequent events cannot be ignored which occurred after the interim order dated 17-2-2004 was passed for the registration of the F.I.R. By the learned Additional. Sessions Judge as according to the final order dated 29-3-2004, the report was submitted by the police to the effect that Asif Ali son of the petitioner had abducted Mst. Fareeda Iqbal wife of Manzoor Hussainalongwith children and both of them had been living at Lahore with the consent of each other. However, the children were sent back and Mst. Fareeda Iqbal also came back, afterwards, who moved an application for registration of the case to learned Additional Sessions Judge against Asif Ali and case has been registered. I do not find any illegality or improbability in the impugned order dated 29-3-2004 through which application moved by the petitioner has been dismissed. As the true facts were discovered through the report submitted by the police that he had abducted Mst. Fareeda Iqbal, the possibility cannot be ruled out that said application was moved with mala fide intention to save the skin of her son Asif Ali from the offence which he allegedly committed by abducting Mst. Fareeda Iqbal a married woman. Even otherwise, case has already been registered against son of the petitioner and others vide F.I.R. No.88 of 2004 dated 1-4- 2004 under sections 16/10 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station Yousafwala about abduction of Mst. Fareeda Iqbal. The petitioner or other accused can furnish their defence version, which will also be considered before conclusion of the investigation of the said case. However, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned order calling for interference by this Court. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed in limine.