Criminal Lawyer in Lahore Pakistan & FIR:
Advocate Nazia is an expert criminal lawyer in Lahore Pakistan. According to the F.I.R, the petitioner has abducted the girl, but according to the petitioner, she had over to him. This is a question of fact that would be adjudicated by the Trial Court. In view of section 363 p.p.c. the matter was under investigation, and to hand over the girl to the petitioner at that stage or even record her Statement would amount to interference in the case. No doubt, normally, the husband is the lawful guardian of his wife. Still, in the present case, it was not known if the marriage itself was valid and was with the girl’s consent, which was objected to by the criminal lawyer in Lahore Pakistan.
Investigation:
The true position in this respect will emerge during the investigation or at the trial. To record evidence or express any view on this subject will only interfere with the investigation and trial of the case. It can be argued that law is blind, and the courts should not care for the consequences while following the law. The Court did not feel inclined to subscribe to this view and observed that law itself considers questions of honors and accepts normal human reactions as factors that must be considered through a criminal lawyer in Lahore Pakistan. The principles of a grave and sudden provocation or self-defense etc., are based on recognizing such reactions and inappropriate case law even condoned murder.
Court:
Similarly, courts, including superior Courts, take such human reactions into account while considering the question of sentence. Even norms and social values of a society or even of a particular region are also kept in view while considered such matters. Certain tendencies or values of Pakistan or. Why should then the norms of the society in which we live and for which we administer the law should not in appropriate cases be kept in mind while calling someone’s daughter or wife in the courts in matters of the kind mentioned above? For this reason, it is precise that the legislature, in its wisdom, kept the jurisdiction under his section discretionary.
Record ordered:
Copies of the record ordered, to be handed over the petitioner’s counsel, Petition disposed of. Respondents had stated that alleged detents were not kept in illegal detention and that ‘habeas corpus petition had been filed to misappropriate the amount paid to them in advance by respondents. Alleged detents who had been produced before the Court were relieved and allowed to proceed to whatever place they wanted to.
Respondents could have recourse to competent form for recovery of any amount they had allegedly paid to detenus in advance. Payment not made. Recovery of detenue. Petitioner’s undertaking for the price of the principal amount in the earlier writ petition. Habeas corpus petition was disposed of with the direction that if the petitioner deposited the amount with the respondent bank, detent should be released immediately. The rest of the recovery amount would follow the writ petition pending in the Court. (2001 PCr.R 7611).
