Sale of a Person is illegal

PLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 3[Multan Bench Multan]

Present: Aslam Javed Minhas, J.

HADAYAT ULLAH--Petitioner

versus

DPO VEHARI etc.--Respondents

Crl. Rev. No. 283 of 2015, decided on 28.9.2015.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----S. 491--Recovery of detenue--Illegal and unlawful custody--Statement of detenue--Allegations of sale and purchase of person leveled by detenue as well as petitioner--Validity--All allegations need detailed inquiry and involve factual controversy which cannot be resolved through revision petition--Petitioner had already divorced detenue, if parties had some grievance, they may avail alternate remedy by way of filing appropriate application before appropriate forum--Petition was disposed off.                                          [P. 5] A

Mrs. Saeeda Asif, Advocate for Petitioner.

Sheikh Muhammad Rahim and Syed Anees Mehdi, Advocates for Respondents

Ch. Muhammad Akbar, DPG.

Date of hearing: 28.9.2015.

Order

Through this petition, the petitioner has sought setting aside order dated 28.05.2015 and 08.06.2015 whereby two petitions under Section 491, Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner were dismissed and issuance of direction for recovery of Mst. Asia along with her minor son namely, Jamshed aged 3½ years from the illegal and unlawful custody of Respondents No. 2 and 3.

2.  The facts of the case are that the petitioner and Abdul Sattar (Respondent No. 2/ father of the Asia Bibi) filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan for the recovery of the detenue namely, Asia Bibi. On the orders of the learned Sessions Judge Mst. Asia, detenue along with her father namely, Abdul Sattar appeared before the learned Sessions Judge on 24.02.2014 and she stated that she wanted to go along with her father, therefore, she was allowed to go with him. Thereafter, again Abdul Sattar, Respondent No. 2 moved another application before the learned Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan for the recovery of Mst. Asia Bibi. Upon orders of the learned Sessions Judge, on 14.03.2014 Mst. Asia Bibiappeared along with Hadayat Ullah (petitioner) and she stated that she was living with her husband happily and wanted to go her husband. Consequently, she was allowed to accompany her husband/petitioner. Again, the petitioner filed another application before the learned Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan for the recovery of Mst. Asia Bibi. On 28.05.2015 learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 in that application tendered copy of divorce deed contending that petitioner, Hadayat Ullah had himself divorced the alleged detenue and the said application was dismissed. Once again, the petitioner filed another application for the recovery of Mst. Asia Bibi which was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan on 08.06.2015. Hence this criminal revision.

3.  In pursuance of order dated 20.08.2015, the alleged detenues have been produced. She got recorded her statement before Respondent No. 1 today wherein she stated that her parents married her with Jan Muhammad deceitfully and she does not want to live with him in caves on mountains; her first marriage was solemnized with Zafar and from that wedlock, Jamshed minor was born and then her parents got her divorced from said Zafar and married her with present petitioner. Thereafter, her parents took her to Sakhi-Sarwar-shrine and sold her to Jan Muhammad, who contracted marriage with her forcibly. She further maintained that she often become sick and there is no facility of medication on mountains; food is not provided to her properly and she also apprehends danger that she will be further sold to someone else. Lastly, in her statement she stated that she does not want to live with said Jan Muhammad as they are extending threats to her life and she did not get divorce from Hadayat Ullah and she want to live with the petitioner.

4.  In view of the statement of the detenue Mst. Asia, she is set at liberty and allowed to go where she likes. So far as certain allegations of sale and purchase of a person leveled by the detenue as well as the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, all these allegations need detailed inquiry and involve factual controversy which cannot be resolve through this revision petition. Similarly, the stance taken by the respondents that the petitioner has already divorced the detenue is concerned, if the parties have some grievance, they may avail alternate remedy by way of filing appropriate application before the appropriate forum.

5.  With the above observation, this revision petition is disposed of as being fructified.

(R.A.)  Petition disposed of

For more, you can consult omara.khan789@gmail.com or call +923123450006