PLJ 2022 Lahore 886
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--
----Art. 199--Abduction of minor--Submission of reports by SHO and DPO--Number of writ petitions were earlier filed by petitioner--Petitioner was habitual litigant and criminal--Frivolous allegations--Denial of claim of petitioner by witness of petitioner--Direction to--It has been established that petitioner is a habitual litigant, who has already filed number of writ petitions before this Court and he is also involved in number of criminal cases and when abovementioned facts have been established during inquiry of DPO, Jhang, as well as, from record of this Court, in order to avoid legal consequences petitioner intends to withdraw this petition--In order to verify his claim CDRs of mobile numbers of petitioner and Respondents No. 7 and 8 were collected and it was found that on relevant date and time location of petitioner, as well as, Respondents No. 7 & 8 was in District Lahore instead of District Jhang--There is no proof of marriage of petitioner with abovementioned Mst. Shaheen Fatima and Mst. Shaheen Fatima has also denied claim of petitioner that she was ever married with petitioner or any son was born from wedlock as claimed by petitioner--Eye-witness of occurrence was not traced out whereas other stated eye witness of occurrence denied claim of petitioner regarding abduction of his son--Respondents No. 7 and 8 may move applications before other SHO(s) of concerned areas for registration of FIR(s) against petitioner--Petition dismissed.
[Pp. 890, 893, 894, 896, 897 & 898] A,B, C, D, E & F
1996 SCMR 1433, PLD 1998 Karachi 180 & 2007 CLC 188 ref.
Mr. Manzoor Hussain Khan, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Amjad Ali Chattha, Addl. Advocate-General for State.
Raja Rafaqat Ali, Advocate with Respondents No. 7 and 8.
Date of hearing: 19.7.2022.
PLJ 2022 Lahore 886
Present: Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, ACJ.
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN--Petitioner
versus
STATE and 7 others--Respondents
W.P. No. 32866 of 2022, decided on 19.7.2022.
Order
The instant constitutional petition has been filed by Muhammad Ramzan, petitioner resident of Chak Janubi, Tehsil & District Jhang on the ground that on 22.05.2022 at 02:00 p.m. Asghar Ali, Respondent No. 7 and Yasmin, Respondent No. 8 along with two unknown persons came at his agricultural land and abducted his minor son, namely Muhammad Asad, aged about fourteen (14) years. It is further alleged in the present petition that on 23.05.2022 the petitioner received a phone call and the caller demanded from the petitioner an amount of Rs. 300,000/-for the release of his son. The petitioner, therefore, filed the instant petition for the recovery of his son, who was statedly in illegal confinement of Respondents No. 7 and 8. This Court vide order, dated 31.05.2022, directed the SHO police station Sanda, District Lahore (Respondent No. 6) to recover the alleged detenue and produce him before this Court on the next date. The case was fixed for 02.06.2022 and on the said date a proxy counsel (Mr. Habib Ullah, Advocate) appeared before this Court on behalf of the petitioner and sought some time for taking instructions from the learned principal counsel but thereafter neither the petitioner nor the abovementioned learned proxy counsel or principal counsel for the petitioner bothered to appear before the Court. The case was kept pending till 11:00 a.m. and thereafter the instant petition was dismissed on merits after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for Respondents No. 7 and 8, as well as, in the light of report furnished by the SHO police station City Jhang, which report showed that neither Muhammad Ramzan, petitioner contracted any marriage nor he had any son as claimed by him in the instant petition. This Court observed that as the petitioner filed a frivolous petition before this Court, which resulted in the wastage of precious time of the Court and general public, therefore, this petition was dismissed with the cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one hundred thousand only) vide order, dated 02.06.2022. The petitioner thereafter challenged the abovementioned order of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order, dated 14.06.2022, rendered in Civil Petition No. 1854 of 2022, set aside the abovementioned order of this Court on the ground that the petitioner was not heard at the time of abovementioned decision of this case, therefore, the case was remanded back to this Court for decision afresh in accordance with the law.
2. On post remand proceedings i.e. on 30.06.2022 the petitioner appeared before this Court and reiterated his contentions voiced through the instant petition. On the other hand, there was a report of the SHO police station City Jhang, which was supported by the verification of Muhammad Nadeem, Councilor Ward No. 6, Municipal Committee, Jhang according to which neither Muhammad Ramzan, petitioner had contracted any marriage nor he had any son as claimed by him in the instant petition. Even Respondents No. 7 and 8 present before the Court along with their learned counsel on the abovementioned date i.e. 30.06.2022 denied the allegations leveled by the petitioner in the instant petition. Mst. Yasmin, Respondent No. 8 also leveled the allegation of rape, blackmailing, taking cash amount through fraudulent means etc against the petitioner with the claim that she had also audio recording of the blackmailing of the petitioner. She further alleged that an amount of Rs. 200,000/-was obtained by the petitioner from her for getting employment for her son, namely Ahmed Hassan, in LESCO Company and when the abovementioned amount was demanded back, the petitioner started filing frivolous petitions against her through different persons and reference in this respect was made to W.P.No. 28200 of 2022 and W.P.No. 31402 of 2022 statedly filed by one Mst. Feroza Bibi under the influence of the petitioner against Respondents No. 7 and 8.
3. As disputed questions of facts were involved in this case, therefore, the DPO, Jhang was directed to hold an inquiry regarding the respective claims of the parties and regarding the fact that as to whether the petitioner has any son with the name of Muhammad Asad. It was further directed that a report shall also be submitted regarding the genuineness or otherwise of the birth certificate of the abovementioned son of the petitioner. In compliance of the above-referred order of this Court the District Police Officer, Jhang submitted his detailed report, dated 06.07.2022 (hereinafter to be referred as report), wherein it is reported that the allegations leveled by the petitioner in the instant petition were found to be false. It was further reported that the petitioner had earlier filed number of other writ petitions before this Court and he is also involved in number of criminal cases. On the next date of hearing i.e. 07.07.2022 the petitioner did not appear before the Court, however, he submitted a written application to adjourn the case. Consequently, the case was adjourned for 15.07.2022 with the clear understanding that no further adjournment shall be granted in this case. On 15.07.2022 the petitioner again did not appear before the Court and in his place Mr. Manzoor Hussain Khan, Advocate appeared before the Court and after filing his power of attorney on behalf of the petitioner he sought adjournment. He also undertook to produce the petitioner before this Court on the next date. It is pertinent to mention here that the instant petition was filed by the petitioner in person. Although on the earlier date of hearing i.e. 07.07.2022 this case was adjourned on the written request of the petitioner with the clear understanding that no further adjournment shall be granted in this case, however, in the interest of justice, last and final opportunity was granted to the petitioner and his learned counsel for arguments in this case and consequently the case was adjourned for today i.e. 19.07.2022. Today the petitioner did not appear before the Court. The undertaking of learned counsel for the petitioner made on the previous date of hearing regarding production of the petitioner before this Court on the next date was not honored. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a request at the very outset that as the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 22/A-B of, Cr.P.C. before the concerned Justice of Peace for redressal of his grievance, therefore, he does not press this petition, hence, the same may be dismissed as having been withdrawn. On the other hand, abovementioned request of learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently been opposed by learned counsel for Respondents No. 7 and 8, as well as, by the learned Addl. Advocate-General on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual litigant/criminal, who has filed the instant petition on the basis of false and frivolous allegations/ documents, which facts have been established during the inquiry of the DPO, Jhang, therefore, in order to avoid the legal consequences, the abovementioned prayer has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner to withdraw this petition.
The abovementioned prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected because the law has been set into motion. A detailed inquiry has been held in this case, precious time of the Court and general public has been consumed and appropriate order in this case has to be passed, therefore, allowing the petitioner to withdraw this petition would amount to subvert the cause of justice.
4. It has been established in this case that the petitioner is a habitual litigant, who has already filed number of writ petitions before this Court and he is also involved in number of criminal cases and when the abovementioned facts have been established during the inquiry of the DPO, Jhang, as well as, from the record of this Court, therefore, in order to avoid legal consequences the petitioner intends to withdraw this petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of “Javaid Iqbal Abbasi and Company vs. Province of Punjab and 6 others” (1996 SCMR 1433) observed that if the prayer to withdraw a writ petition has been made for perpetuating a fraud or injustice then the Court may decline withdrawal of the writ petition. The relevant para of the said judgment at Para 10 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
“10. From the above discussed legal position, we are of the view that normally the Court will not disallow an application for unconditional withdrawal of a writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution after its institution but if the Court comes to the conclusion that the application for withdrawal of the proceedings has been made in order to defeat the right of respondent or any other person to whom the right to pursue the petition has accrued after filing of the petition or withdrawal of the proceedings, would result in perpetuating a fraud or injustice, the Court may decline to allow the petitioner to withdraw the case. The Court may also in appropriate cases, where it comes to the conclusion that the purpose of withdrawal of proceeding is only to prevent the Court from passing an order undoing a wrong or an, injustice done to a party or the withdrawal would deprive the Government or a public functionary to receive or recover the public dues, or the withdrawal would otherwise defeat the ends of justice, decline the prayer for withdrawal of petition titled under Article 199 of the Constitution seeking equitable relief from the Court ……………………………”
Similar view was taken in the cases of “Ahmed Nawaz alias Babal Khan Jakhrani vs. The State and another” (PLD 1998 Karachi 180) and “Muhammad Aslam v.s District Returning Officer, Sheikhupura and 6 others” (2007 CLC 188) wherein the requests of the petitioners, to withdraw the writ petitions of the said cases were declined on the ground that once the law has been set into motion and cognizance has been taken by the Court then appropriate order has to be issued and if the prayer to withdraw the petition would amount to defeat the ends of justice then the said prayer may be declined. It was also observed in the case of Muhammad Aslam, supra as under:
“4. Today the learned Returning Officer/Civil Judge has appeared and rebuffed the allegation. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted peevishly that he wanted to withdraw this writ petition.
5. It is very unfortunate that it has become fashion to level false and wild allegations against the innocent persons disregarding their status and position, which is not only illegal, it is also a sin, in accordance with our religion. Under the constitution of Pakistan, to malign judiciary, is a serious offence, therefore, the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be granted.
6. This writ petition is dismissed with Rs. 50,000/-as cost, to be paid by the petitioner. The office is directed to make arrangement for the recovery of the same in accordance with law and rules. The petitioner is also declared disqualified to contest the election in view of above false allegation against a member of the judiciary which he has miserably failed to prove or substantiate.”
(Bold and underlining is supplied for emphasis)
5. In the light of above the request of learned counsel for the petitioner to withdraw this petition is hereby declined and I proceed to decide the instant petition on merits.
6. As mentioned earlier, in compliance of this Court’s order dated 30.06.2022, the District Police Officer, Jhang has furnished his report. The perusal of the said report shows that Muhammad Ramzan, petitioner, as well as, Asghar Ali Respondent No. 7 and Mst. Yasmin Respondent No. 8 along with others were associated during the inquiry proceedings. The DPO, Jhang has reported that the petitioner is a habitual criminal, who is involved in as many as sixteen (16) criminal cases. The list of the said cases has been annexed as Annexure-H, with the report. It has further been reported that the petitioner himself earlier filed, as many as, eleven (11) writ petitions before this Court and he has also got filed eleven (11) other writ petitions through different persons in this Court. It is further reported that this is third petition filed by the petitioner before this Court for the alleged illegal detention of his son. I have also noted that earlier W.P.No. 24167 of 2010 was filed by Muhammad Ramzan, petitioner before this Court with the allegation that Respondents No. 13 and 15 of the said petition have illegally detained the son of the petitioner, namely Muhammad Asad. The DPO, Jhang informed the Court in the abovementioned writ petition that the petitioner is in a habit of filing writ petitions on frivolous grounds. Consequently, the abovementioned writ petition was dismissed with the cost of Rs. 2000/-vide order, dated 29.11.2010 and the DPO, Jhang was directed to take necessary legal proceedings against the petitioner, in case he was found to have committed cheating or misrepresentation, after proper investigation. The abovementioned order of this Court reads as follows:
“29.11.2010 Nemo for the petitioner.
Mr. Jawad Hassan, Addl. A.G. with Dr. Muhammad Rizwan, District Police Officer, Jhang/Respondent No. 3
Respondents No. 13 to 15 in person.
“Respondents No. 13 to 15 categorically denied that the son of the petitioner, namely, Muhammad Asad is in their illegal custody. They submitted that the petitioner never got married and as such, the question of abduction or keeping his alleged son in illegal confinement did not arise at all. DPO, Jhang has informed this Court that the petitioner is in habit of filing writ petitions on frivolous grounds and his earlier petitions have already been dismissed by this Court.
2. In view of above, the instant petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 2,000/-DPO, Jhang is directed to take necessary legal proceedings against the petitioner in case, he is found to have committed cheating or misrepresentation, after proper investigation.”
In compliance of the abovementioned order of this Court, FIR
No. 1483, dated 05.12.2010 under Section 419/420/468 and 471 PPC was registered at police station Sadar Jhang, District Jhang and during the course of investigation the petitioner was found guilty by the Investigating Officer. It is further noteworthy that the petitioner also filed another W.P.No. 8007 of 2022 before this Court with the contention that LESCO Officers have abducted his son, namely Muhammad Asad. In the said writ petition SHO appeared before this Court on 10.02.2022 and submitted that the son of the petitioner was not under the custody of LESCO Officers/Respondents No. 5 to 7 of the said case and abovementioned petition was false and vexatious. Moreover, in the said case, on 21.02.2022 SSP, (Operations), Lahore submitted inquiry report wherein it was reported that the petitioner filed the abovementioned writ petition to harass the Wapda/Lesco authorities for his ulterior motives and for getting benefits in respect of pending liability qua electricity dues and bills. It was further mentioned in the said report that the petitioner after taking benefits from the Lesco authorities intended to withdraw his abovementioned writ petition from this Court. On the next date of hearing of said writ petition i.e. on 21.02.2022 the abovementioned writ petition was dismissed as having been withdrawn without touching the merits of the case. It is, therefore, evident that the petitioner has filed the instant third habeas petition regarding alleged illegal detention of his son. He has earlier filed two writ petitions regarding the same grievance against the other respondents. The perusal of the report of the DPO, Jhang further reveals that Muhammad Ramzan, petitioner did not produce eye-witnesses of the occurrence mentioned in the case before the Inquiry Officer, however, the local police was directed by the inquiry officer to trace out the petitioner’s eye-witnesses. One eye-witness, namely Ameer Shah could not be located while the other eye witness of the petitioner, namely Muhammad Saleem, was traced out and he was associated in the inquiry proceedings. The said Muhammad Saleem, showed his ignorance about the occurrence as claimed by the petitioner. He further stated that neither incident of abduction took place nor he witnessed any incident. His statement has been annexed as Annexure-A with the report. Muhammad Nadeem, Muhammad Ali, Muhammad Rafique and Muhammad Bakhsh, who were residents of the locality where the occurrence statedly took place, also joined the inquiry and denied the allegations leveled by the petitioner in the instant petition and they verified that no such occurrence as claimed by the petitioner, had taken place. Their statements were recorded and the same have been enclosed as Annexure-B with the report. Perusal of inquiry report further shows that according to the claim of the petitioner he (petitioner) was in the area of Chund Bharwana Tehsil & District Jhang at the time of occurrence, where the occurrence took place. In order to verify his claim the CDRs of mobile numbers of the petitioner and Respondents No. 7 and 8 were collected and it was found that on the relevant date and time the location of the petitioner, as well as, Respondents No. 7 & 8 was in District Lahore instead of District Jhang. The perusal of inquiry report further reveals that the petitioner claimed that he solemnized marriage with one Mst. Shaheen Fatima and from the said wedlock one son, namely Muhammad Asad (alleged detenue) was born who after divorce between the spouses in the year 2009 was grown up by his aunt, namely Mst. Sattan Bibi. However, the petitioner neither produced his Nikah Nama nor divorce deed or even the photo of his son before the DPO, Jhang. The petitioner, however, produced the birth certificate of his son issued by Union Council No. 89, Civil Lines, Jhang but the Chief Officer, Municipal Committee, Jhang vide letter No. 98/CO, dated 06.07.2022 has reported that birth register has been found tempered with, therefore, a request has been made to the Deputy Director, Local Government, Jhang for further inquiry regarding tempering in the abovementioned birth register. The petitioner could not tell the whereabouts of his stated ex-wife, namely Shaheen Fatima. The Inquiry Officer with the help of identity card number mentioned on the above-referred birth certificate, traced out Mst. Shaheen Fatima, whose address was written as Mohallah Islampura, Noshehra Virkan, District Gujranwala in the relevant document. The abovementioned Shaheen Fatima categorically denied her marriage with the petitioner. She further stated that she has no child with the name of Muhammad Asad from the petitioner. The statement of Mst. Shaheen Fatima, is annexed as Annexure-D with the report. In order to verify the factum of bringing up the alleged abductee by Mst. Sattan Bibi her house was traced out where her daughter-in-law Mst. Sakina Bibi and grandson, namely Shahid Abbas were found. They both stated that Muhammad Ramzan, petitioner was their relative, however, the petitioner neither solemnized marriage nor he had any child. They categorically denied the version that the alleged abductee, namely Muhammad Asad was grown up by Mst. Sattan Bibi. According to their statements, Mst. Sattan Bibi had already died. Statements of Mst. Sakina Bibi and Shahid Abbas, are also enclosed as Annexure-E with the report. In the above-referred inquiry proceedings Mst. Yasmin, Respondent No. 8 also made her statement wherein she stated that the petitioner had obtained an amount of Rs. 200,000/-(Rupees Two Hundred Thousand Only) from her through fraud and blackmailing and he also committed rape with her after taking her to the ground floor of Dreamland Hotel, 9-Fan Road, Lahore. In view of the statement of Mst. Yasmin (Respondent No. 8), staff of the above said hotel was also associated in the inquiry proceedings and all the staff members confirmed that Muhammad Ramzan, petitioner obtained a room in the basement of the hotel on rent where he used to bring different ladies on different occasions. Consequently, Mst. Misbah, Mst. Asma Arooj and Mst. Tahira Parveen were also associated in inquiry proceeding and they also disclosed that the petitioner committed their rape on the pretext that he would help them to get jobs. They also leveled the allegations of blackmailing etc. against the petitioner. The DPO, Jhang in his inquiry report finally concluded as under:-
“After detailed proceedings, following facts came forth:-
a. Muhammad Saleem, eye-witness of petitioner categorically denied the allegations leveled by the petitioner.
b. No one from the locality endorsed the version of petitioner rather, all negated his version regarding his son and alleged incident.
c. During proceedings, petitioner contended that at the time of occurrence, he was in Chund Bharwna Jhang but as per CDR of his mobile phone numbers, his location was in District Lahore.
d. As per CDRs, the locations of Respondents No. 7 & 8 have also been found in District Lahore on the day of alleged occurrence i.e. 22.05.2022.
e. The petitioner has neither contracted marriage with Mst. Shaheen Fatima nor he has any child. Petitioner’s contention was categorically denied by Mst. Shaheen Fatima (alleged wife of petitioner).
f. The local people of vicinity confirmed that petitioner Muhammad Ramzan has neither solemnized marriage nor he has any child.
g. The version of petitioner that his son was grown up by his aunt Mst. Sattan Bibi has been negated by the close relatives of Mst. Sattan Bibi as petitioner has never solemnized marriage.
h. As per report of Chief Officer, Municipal Committee, Jhang, Birth Register has been found tempered regarding registration of petitioner’s son.
i. Ealirer, during the year 2010, petitioner also filed writ petition No. 24167/2010 with the allegations that his son Muhammad Asad has been abducted by accused. The Honorable Court dismissed the petition with direction to register criminal case against him while, fine was also imposed upon petitioner. Consequently, case FIR No. 1483 dated 05.12.2010 u/S. 419/420/468/471 PPC was registered against him at PS Saddar Jhang.
j. Earlier, petitioner also filed Writ Petition No. 8007/2022 titled as Muhammad Ramzan Vs. IGP Punjab, etc against LESCO for recovery of his son Muhammad Asad which was withdrawn by him.
k. The allegations leveled by Respondent No. 08 Mst. Yasmin Bibi regarding rape and blackmailing by petitioner Muhammad Ramzan have also been verified by the Hotel Staff, as well as, other ladies who were associated into the inquiry proceedings through local police.
In view of above made submission & circumstances, petitioner has never solemnized marriage and he has no son as contended in subject writ petition. While, record of birth certificate produced by the petitioner before the Honorable Court as well as during inquiry proceedings, has also been reported tempered by the concerned department. The petitioner is habitual litigant and it is pertinent to mention here that this is third time petition filed by the petitioner before the Honorable Court for recovery of his so called abducted son Muhammad Asad. All the allegations leveled by the present petitioner in this petition have been found false & baseless, therefore, it is most respectfully prayed that the subject writ petition having no substance may graciously be dismissed.
Submitted Please.”
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to controvert the findings of the DPO, Jhang recorded in his inquiry report, dated 06.07.2022. It is, therefore, established in this case that there is no proof of the marriage of the petitioner with the abovementioned Mst. Shaheen Fatima and the said Mst. Shaheen Fatima has also denied the claim of the petitioner that she was ever married with the petitioner or any son was born from the wedlock as claimed by the petitioner. All the relatives of the petitioner also denied that the petitioner was ever married or he had a son as claimed in the present petition. The earlier petition filed by the petitioner before this Court i.e. W.P.No. 24167 of 2010 regarding alleged illegal detention of his son, namely Muhammad Asad has already been dismissed by this Court vide order, dated 29.11.2010 with the cost of Rs. 2000/-and the DPO, Jhang was directed by this Court to take necessary legal proceedings against the petitioner, whereupon FIR No. 1483 dated 05.12.2010 u/S. 419/420/468/471 PPC was registered against him at PS Saddar Jhang. One stated eye-witness of the occurrence was not traced out whereas the other stated eye witness of the occurrence denied the claim of the petitioner regarding the abduction of his son. Likewise, people of the area of occurrence, duly mentioned in the inquiry report also denied the allegations of the petitioner leveled in the instant petition and submitted that no such occurrence had taken place in the area. Even close relatives of the petitioner, namely Mst. Sakina Bibi and Shahid Abbas have also stated during the inquiry proceedings that neither the petitioner was ever married nor there is any son of the petitioner. As per police record the petitioner is involved in sixteen (16) criminal cases. He has himself earlier filed eleven (11) writ petitions before this Court and he got filed eleven (11) writ petitions before this Court through different persons, which shows that the petitioner is in a habit of filing frivolous petitions before this Court and he is a habitual criminal.
8. In the light of above, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has filed the instant false and frivolous petition before this Court on the basis of unture facts and forged documents, which has resulted into the wastage of precious time of the Court and general public, therefore, this petition is dismissed with the cost of Rs. 300,000/-(Rupees Three Hundred Thousand Only), which shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this Court within a period of thirty (30) days from today, failing which the same shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. After recovery of abovementioned amount the same shall be paid to Respondents No. 7 and 8, after observing all codal formalities.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for Respondents No. 7 and 8 submits that the allegations of demanding and taking cash amount from Respondent No. 8 through fraud, cheating and blackmailing, as well as, the allegations of commission of rape have been leveled against the petitioner by Respondent No. 8 and other ladies mentioned in the report of the DPO, Jhang, whereas the petitioner has also committed different other offences against Respondents No. 7 and 8, therefore, order for registration of FIRs may be passed against the petitioner. In this respect it is observed that Respondent No. 8 and other ladies mentioned in the report of the DPO, Jhang may submit applications before the SHO police station Mozang, Lahore, who will proceed on the said applications in accordance with the law. The DPO, Jhang is also directed that if the birth certificate of the stated son of the petitioner is found to be forged and fake then he shall initiate necessary legal proceedings against the petitioner. Respondents No. 7 and 8 may also
file applications before the SHO police station City Jhang, District Jhang (Respondent No. 5) in respect of the offences of fraud, forgery, cheating, blackmailing, etc. statedly committed by the petitioner, who will proceed on the said applications in accordance with the law. In case applications are moved by Respondents No. 7 and 8 before the SHO (Respondent No. 5) then the same shall be decided within a period of four (04) weeks from today. The DPO, Jhang shall furnish a report regarding the abovementioned directions within a period of six (06) weeks from today with the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this Court. It is further observed that Respondents No. 7 and 8 may move applications before other SHO(s) of the concerned areas for registration of FIR(s) against the petitioner and if any application is moved in this respect by the abovementioned respondents then the same shall be decided strictly in accordance with the law, without being influenced by any observation made in this order.
(Y.A.) Petition dismissed
0 Comments