16. [Omitted].
COMMENTARY
Lady was medically
examined after about one year from her statement made before Family
Court.--Record showed that lady allegedly abducted, had filed a suit against
her husband for dissolution of marriage. Lady had also sought protection from
Magistrate who sent her to Darul Amaan from where she was released and it was
several days thereafter that she was medically examined and positive report was
given. Alleged abductee had stated before Family Court that she had joined her
husband and she did not want to pursue the suit. Lady was medically examined
after about one year from her statement made before Family Court. Case being of
further inquiry, accused was admitted to bail. 2006 PCr.LJ
816.
No evidence was on
record to establish defence of accused that direct enmity existed between him
and complainant.--Prima facie sufficient material was available on record to
connect accused with commission of offence. Court, at bail stage, was merely to
examine material on file to see whether, prima facie, evidence was sufficient
to connect accused with the crime. Accused was found involved in a heinous
offence which was covered with prohibition as contained in S. 497, Cr.P.C.
Accused, who had been absconding in the past, was not entitled for any
concession. Bail petition having no force was dismissed. 2006
PCr.LJ 1275.
Quashing of
FIR.--Brother of alleged enticed lady in his FIR had alleged enticing away of
his sister by petitioner and his co-accused. Alleged enticed
lady who was the star witness, had not supported case of the prosecution.
No likelihood existed of petitioner and his co-accused being convicted of said
offence. Circumstances of case had shown that a matrimonial issue had been
converted by complainant party into a criminal case so as to bring weight of
criminal law to bear upon alleged enticed lady in order to break her resolve
and to force her back into the matrimonial fold of her husband as she was
married and she had filed suit for dissolution of marriage against her husband.
Such utilization of criminal process, was nothing, but
an abuse of process of law which could not be allowed to be perpetuated. FIR, was quashed, in circumstances. 2006
YLR 1660.
Set at liberty to look
after her matrimonial and other affairs of normal life.--Adult and major woman
who is capable to take decision cannot be forced to be lodged in Dar-ul-Amaan
to curtail her right of liberty. Petitioner could not be kept in Dar-ul-Amaan
for indefinite period against her wishes as a preventive detention in view of
the above circumstances. Petitioner was consequently set at liberty to lead a
normal life of a free person. Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. 2006 YLR 35.
Statement u/S. 164,
Cr.P.C.--Petitioner had assailed order passed by Judicial Magistrate whereby
statement of petitioner was refused to be recorded on ground that same was not
in accordance with her free-will. Magistrate had
misinterpreted provisions contained in S. 164, Cr.P.C. and made an erroneous
order for which there was no justification under law. High Court allowed
petition and set aside impugned order with direction that statement of
petitioner be recorded as prayed by her, if she was willing to make a voluntary
statement. 2006 PCr.LJ 130.
Summoning of
accused.--Case of complainant was that petitioners took away her daughter as
one of the petitioners had illicit relation with her. Respondent got registered
FIR, but police found case to be false and prepared cancellation report.
Complainant filed petition u/S. 491, Cr.P.C. for recovery of her daughter which
was decided by the Court observing that matter was probed in by various
authorities at the various levels, but whereabouts of the daughter of
complainant could not be known; also that if complainant was able to locate her
daughter anywhere in illegal custody of anybody she would be entitled to get
her petition restored so as to recover her daughter. Daughter of
the complainant having
not been recovered, it
was necessary for complainant to place on record of the
trial Court copy of order passed in petition u/S. 491, Cr.P.C. and the trial
Court was to consider the same before passing impugned order of summoning
accused, but same having not been done, impugned order of summoning accused was
not maintainable and being not legal and proper, was liable to be set aside.
Impugned order was set aside and trial Court was directed to pass fresh order
after considering order passed on petition u/S. 491, Cr.P.C. and after hearing
the parties. 2006 YLR 1824.
Marriage will be presumed,
in absence of direct proof from, prolonged and continual cohabitation as
husband and wife, the fact of acknowledgement by the man of the paternity of
the child born to the woman, provided all the conditions of a valid
acknowledgement are fulfilled. Fact of the acknowledgement by
the man as the woman as his wife. FIR quashed. Petitioners are husband
and wife. Petition accepted. PLJ 2004
During Iddat period if
any woman entered into Nikah that would be against law and also Injunctions of
Islam and it would be liable to Ta'zir. If a married non-Muslim woman would
embrace Islam, she must inform her husband of said conversion and her husband
either would embrace Islam within period of Iddat in which case marriage would
continue, or he would remain a non-Muslim even after expiry of Iddat, period,
in which case marriage would stand dissolved. Iddat was compulsory after
dissolution of marriage of any character. Within Iddat period Nikah would be
invalid rather void and during that period co-habitation would come within
definition of Zina and would be liable to be punished. Petition for quashing of
F.I.R. was dismissed, in circumstances. PLD 2005 Lah.
126.