2026 P Cr (PLP)

Asjad Javaid Ghural, J.

Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, petitioner Muhammad Baber has challenged the legality and propriety of order dated 14.01.2021 passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Lahore, whereby upon application of respondent No.4 (respondent) under Section 22-A Cr.P.C. a direction for registration of criminal case against him was issued.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that respondent filed a petition under Section 22-A Cr.P.C. against the petitioner alleging therein that since the period of studies at Ali Education School System, the petitioner on the commitment to contract marriage had been committing Zina with her for the period of eight years, upon which she became pregnant in the year 2015 which was subsequently got terminated by her. The petitioner also received huge amount, which she paid after selling her two vehicles and gold ornaments. The petitioner finally refused to marry the respondent and also extended her life threats, which constrained her to file application seeking registration of case before the police hierarchy. On being unsuccessful, she knocked the door of learned Ex Officio Justice of Peace, who vide impugned order dated 14.01.2021 directed the SHO concerned to record the statement of the respondent under section 154 Cr.P.C. and then proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law, which is a subject matter of this writ petition.

3. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, learned Addl. A.G. and gone through the record.

4. The story set out in the application seeking registration of case against the petitioner would hardly find a buyer. The allegation of Zina allegedly committed by the petitioner for a continuous period of eight years by a person who has earned international repute in the field of world cricket appears on the face of it to be inherently improbable. It is difficult to conceive that such serious allegations including taking away the respondent from her house by the petitioner and committing Zina there for a considerable period could remain unreported for such a long period of eight years if it had any element of truth. The reason advanced by the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent that she remained silent for this period on the promise of the petitioner to marry her and subsequently resiled from his commitment after attaining fame, does not hold any legal ground. A mere assertion of a promise to marry, particularly when alleged to have subsisted over an inordinate long period, cannot by itself furnish a plausible explanation for the extraordinary delay in setting the law into motion. The record does not reflect any contemporaneous conduct or independent material indicating that the respondent was ever placed under such deception or compulsion as would justify her continuous silence. In the absence of convincing circumstances, the plea of the respondent that she refrained from initiating any proceedings on account of alleged promise of marriage does not inspire confidence.

5. Another important aspect of the matter is that the respondent had earlier filed an application containing similar allegations before the S.H.O. P.S. Naseer Abad, Lahore, which she subsequently withdrew by swearing an affidavit wherein she categorically admitted that said application had been filed on frivolous grounds at the behest of certain media persons. Such an unequivocal admission on Oath seriously undermines the credibility of the present claim. Having once disowned the allegations by acknowledging their frivolous character, the respondent cannot be allowed to resurrect the same accusations through second application. Learned counsel for the respondent though conceded withdrawal of earlier application but denied the contents of affidavit sworn by his client and emphatically argued that compromise was entered into on the assurance of the petitioner that he would enter into marriage with the respondent. On the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent has also got recorded her video statement confirming the contents of affidavit and such video is available on U-tube(sic) and can be provided. Be that as it may, the affidavit sworn by the respondent in the earlier proceedings contained her signature and thumb impression and also confirmed by the police authorities by furnishing report and parawise comments. Even otherwise, instant petition along with said affidavit was filed by the petitioner in January, 2021 and in such a long period, the respondent neither questioned the veracity of contents of said affidavit nor even filed a single application against the police officials complaining that wrong facts were added in her affidavit. In view of above, the plea advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent is outrightly rejected. Second application of the respondent on the similar allegation appears to be nothing more than an attempt to revive a claim which she herself earlier discredited under Oath.

6. It is also significant to note that prior to filing of instant application seeking registration of case against the petitioner, respondent issued a legal notice to the petitioner, in which she did not require him to fulfill his commitment to marry her rather she demanded certain amount, which fact is also sufficient to believe that the plea agitated by the respondent that the petitioner continued to commit Zina with her on the commitment of entering into marriage with her is nothing except the words of mouth. Had it been so, the first demand in the legal notice would have been to require the petitioner to fulfill his promise.

7. It is also significant to note that in the Medical Report dated 17.07.2016 made part of the record by the respondent herself, she got recorded the name of the petitioner as her husband despite the admitted fact that no such marital status ever existed between them. This conduct of the respondent further erodes her credibility and cannot be brushed aside as a mere irregularity or inadvertence rather it prima facie amounts to a calculated act of misrepresentation and fabrication of record. The deliberate assertion of false relationship in medical documents on the part of the respondent reflects an attempt to create a misleading narrative and to lend artificial support to her allegation. This conduct, therefore, squarely falls within the realm of forgery and seriously undermines the veracity and bona fide of the respondent's allegations, demonstrating her willingness to manipulate medical record to advance a false claim.

8. Even otherwise, if the contents of application of the respondent seeking registration of criminal case are taken at their face value and accepted as gospel truth without any addition or omission, the allegations made therein do not constitute the commission of any cognizable offence. At best, the narration put forth by the respondent depicts a consensual relationship allegedly continuing for a considerable per od of time (which though unequivocally denied by the petitioner), as such the same would fall within realm of fornication. It is well settled that fornication between consenting couple howsoever morally questionable does not warrant registration of an FIR and only a complaint under the relevant law can be lodged against the responsible. Therefore, on this score also the application of the respondent seeking registration of case was liable to be rejected.

9. The petitioner is a renowned cricketer enjoying international fame. No doubt even a person of such repute is not above the law and remains answerable for his acts, however, the process of criminal law cannot be permitted to be invoked lightly against such personality on the basis of allegations, which on the face of it, fails to satisfy the test of common prudence. Before dragging a person of such standing into the rigors of a criminal prosecution, the Court must carefully examine whether the accusations carry the ring of truth or are merely a product of ulterior motives. It must always be borne in mind that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to become a tool in the hands of unscrupulous elements to malign, humiliate or bring disrepute to a person who enjoys a distinguished reputation and the judicial process must remain vigilant to ensure that it is not misused for settling scores or achieving collateral purposes. Here in the instant case, in the earlier round of litigation, the respondent by swearing her affidavit conceded that the allegations against the petitioner were based on mala fide and she was playing in the hands of some media persons. When this admission is kept in juxta position with the facts discussed above, I have no hesitation in holding that the application of the respondent seeking registration of case against the petitioner is a calculated move to malign his reputation and bring him into disrepute before the public at large. The tenor of the allegations coupled with the admission of the petitioner in her affidavit indicate that she appears to be motivated not by genuine grievance but by a desire to bring disrepute to the petitioner by levelling scandalous and sensational allegation against him. Such allegations lacking spontaneity and credibility cannot be allowed to become a tool for character assassination.

10. Unfortunately, the learned Ex Oflicio Justice of Peace while passing impugned order has failed to comprehend above aspects of the matter and passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner, which cannot be allowed to hold the field. Resultantly, instant application is allowed and impugned order of Ex Officio Justice of Peace dated 14.01.2021 is set-aside. MH/M-59/L Petition allowed.