P L D 1999 Lahore 494 (PLP)

?(ii)?????? Wahiduddin Khan v. Deputy Commissioner (PLD 1964 Peshawar 104) a D.B. Judgment. In the instant case the non-submission of the written statement and a counter-affidavit would mean that the averments made in the petition stand prima facie proved.

12. Coming to the question of quashment of the F.I.R., this Court is of the view that there is no cavil to the proposition that the function of Court and police are complementary and are not overlapping and that each institution should ordinarily remain within the parameters of its own domain. However? in Shahnaz Begum v. The Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan and another PLD 1971 SC 677 which was in fact reiteration of the ratio laid down in Emperor v. Kh. Nazir Ahmed (AIR 1945 PC 18), at page 692, it was observed that "if an investigation is launched mala fide or is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of the investigating agencies concerned then it may be possible for the action of the investigating agencies to be corrected by a proper proceeding either under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962 or under the provisions of section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if the applicant is in the later case in detention, but not by invoking the inherent power under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code". In Muhammad Hanif and others v. Mukarram Khan and others (PLD 1996 Lahore 58) which is a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in which it was laid down that "High Court proceeding under Article 199 of the Constitution or under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. should ordinarily not pass orders in matter exclusively preserved for the Police Department". - ' The ratio laid down in the aforereferred judgment is that the High Court while proceeding under section 561-A Cr.P.C. can only quash proceedings in a Court of law and would not ordinarily interfere in the police investigation. However, sitting in the Constitutional jurisdiction this Court has power to interfere where the mala fide is apparent on record or where there is total lack of jurisdiction to .proceed. The precedent case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar, Advocate is distinguishable. In Mst. Tahira Khatoon v. S.H.O., Factory Area, Sargodha (1998 PCr.LJ 1029) the observation made was "hence simply on the statement of the petitioner that the F.I.R. No.173 of 1997 is mala fide and collusive, the same cannot be quashed at this stage". Reliance in this judgment was placed on Ahmed Saeed v. State (1996 SCMR 186) in which case the moot point was whether the High Court could quash F.I.R. on the ground of mala fide under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. and it was laid down that "we are afraid that the High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. could not quash F.I.R. on the ground of mala fide or on the ground that the F.I.R. discloses civil liability". In Mst. Abida Perveen and another v. The State and 2 others (1997 PLD PCr. LJ 880) this Court did not quash F.I.R. under Article 199 of the Constitution because, firstly, there was no allegation of mala fides and, secondly, it was observed "the Nikahnama produced as Annexure B alongwith this petition shows that age of the bride as 20 years whereas the age of bridegroom is not given at all. Likewise there was no witness or Wakil from the side of the bride as would appear from columns.Nos.7 and 8 of Nikahnama which have been left blank". Yet another judgment of this Court relied upon by respondent's learned counsel is Qaisar Mahmood v. Muhammad Shafi and another (PLD 1998 Lahore 72) in which quashttpnt in a Hudood case was refused where petitioner husband had claimed valid marriage as a defence. In the said case the Court while taking note of certain infirmities in Nikahnama was persuaded not to grant relief in the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court and it was observed that "it is not unknown that no Muslim marriage is valid without at least two persons witnessing the same but Column No. 11 which is meant for the witnesses of the marriage lies blank meaning thereby that there were no witnesses of this alleged marriage. Zamir Hussain v. Badshah and 2 others (1998 PCr.LJ 883) would also not be relevant as in the said case the main consideration which weighed with the Court in refusing quashment was that no material was brought on record contrary to the prosecution story as given in. the F.I.R. to indicate that the F.I.R. was registered for mala fide reasons". In Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal (PLD 1984 Supreme Court 95) the facts were distinguishable. In that case the accused allegedly abducted complainant's 14 years old daughter and committed rape with her. During trial he pleaded valid Nikah as defence. The victim girl did not support him and stated that Nikah was under coercion. Trial Court convicted the accused, Federal Shariat Court acquitted him and the Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the case with the observation to record statement of Nikah Khawan and other witnesses who were not examined by the trial Court earlier.

13. However, this Court as also the Hon'ble Supreme Court have always interfered even at the investigation stage where to promote the ends of justice or the mala fide is manifest on record and there is material on record to suggest that the offences alleged are prima facie not attracted. In Syed Fayyaz Hussain Hamdani v. The State (1982 PCr.L1 726) this Court quashed the criminal proceedings when there were documents brought on record to suggest that the case registered was not tenable in law. In Mst. Sabai and Muhammad Sher v. The State (1988 PCr.LJ 1576) F. I. R. was quashed when there was strong material on record to indicate that the petitioners were husband and wife and in the said case the statement of the alleged wife and the affidavit of Nikah Registrar were found sufficient to quash the case registered. In Mst. Naseer Khatoon v. The S.H.O., Police Station City, Mianwali and another (1994 PCr.LJ 1111) the F. I. R. in Hudood case was quashed as the S.H.O. stated that the petitioners were husband and wife. In Byram D. Avari etc. v. The State (PLD 1989 Pesh. 145) a Division Bench judgment of the Peshawar High Court, F.I.R. was quashed as it was found that "in other words the Officer Incharge of the Police Station has to apply his mind to the fact narrated to him and in case he finds that such a narration discloses an offence only then he shall register a case. The investigation which follows the registration of the case must have its roots in the alleged commission of an offence. The police report and the subsequent investigation launched thereto without the commission of an offence would obviously fall outside the competence of -the authorities concerned. In a given circumstance, as in this case, it may obviously smack of mala fides as well. As such, the case registered against the petitioners and the subsequent warrant of arrest issued by respondent No.4 are beyond the competence of the authorities concerned and mala fide in law as stated above". In Muhammad Arshad v. Station House Officer and others (1997 PCr.LJ 928) F.I.R. was quashed as it was found that the petitioners were husband and wife, at page 932 it was observed "according to Mulla a boy or girl who had attained puberty is at liberty to marry any one he or she likes and the guardian has no right to interfere. Further, according to presumption of marriage detailed in section 268 (c) of the Muhammadan Law, the fact of acknowledgement by the man or the woman as his wife is accepted as valid marriage". In Anwar Ahmad Khan v. The State and another 1996 SCMR 24 while dilating the powers of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan the Hon'ble Supreme Court at page 36, observed "it is well-settled principle that where investigation is mala fide or without jurisdiction, the High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is competent to correct such proceedings and pass necessary order to ensure justice and fair play. The investigating authorities do not have the entire and total authority of running investigation according to their whims".

14. The aforereferred resume of the precedent case-law would show that this Court has ample powers in the Constitutional jurisdiction to interfere where there is material on record to show that the investigation launched demonstrates either malice in law or fact. In the instant case there are following features which lend strong credence to the allegations of mala fides levelled against the police and State functionaries:- (i) The police had acted beyond its lawful mandate in its drive to exert pressure on Mehmood Butt, his mother, his brother so 'that he is separated from Humaira with whom there was a Nikah on record. Initially a case vide F.I.R. No. 524 of 1998 was registered on 4-11-1998 at Police Station North Cant., Lahore though on the statement of one Nazir Ahmad who alleged that Mehmood Butt and Naeem Butt had abducted his niece Mst. Rabia alias Nanni aged 18 years from Fortress Stadium, Lahore on the evening of 2-11-1998 in a Pajero vehicle bearing No.LHY/8301. This case was found to be false and it is conceded before this Court that it was registered to arrest Humaira and Mehmood. (ii) A perusal of the case diary of F.I.R. No.524 of 1998 indicates that S.-I. Subah Sadiq of Police. Station North Cant., Lahore secured permission from his higher officers to visit Karachi on 28-11-1998 to effect the arrest of "Rabia". On 7-11-1998, S.P. Cant., Lahore wrote a letter to S.S.P., Lahore to bring the names of Mehmood Butt, Mst. Zeb Naseem (mother of Mehmood Butt), Naeem Butt and Naseem Butt on the Exit Control List as it was alleged that they had abducted complainant's niece Rabia and they were planning to flee abroad. The S.S.P., Lahore in turn wrote a letter to the District Magistrate, Lahore with the same request (No.20925 dated 7-11-1998) and she District M4gistrate, it seems, wrote a letter to the Secretary Interior but the final order passed by the Secretary Interior has not been produced before this Court. Statements of complainant Nazir Ahmad's wife and two other witnesses were also recorded about the abduction of Rabia under section 161, Cr.P.C. On 29-11-1998 a police party headed by S.-I. Subah Sadiq of P.S. North Cant. Lahore went to Karachi and the Case Diary indicated that Ali Abbas, a brother of Humaira, was also accompanying him and they were supposedly in search of abductee, namely,. Rabia alias Nanni raids were conducted by the police on Mehmood Butt's house. Edhi Centre was contacted. On 7-11-1998 there is an entry in the case diary that S.-I. Subah Sadiq came to know through Press that the real name of Rabia alias Nanni was Humaria and on 17-12-1998 there is an entry that as per the Newspaper Report the abductee is Humaira Abbas and her father is Muhammad Abbas Khokhar, M.P.A. is to be contacted and that despite efforts made he could not be contacted. The aforereferred entries were dishonest attempt to camouflage the action taken by the local police in going all the way to Karachi and in raiding the Edhi Centre where Humaira had got shelter. It was widely reported in the Press and never denied by the Punjab Police A News clipping of the "Daily Dawn", Karachi dated 1-12-1998 (Annexure A) reads as under:-- "A heavy contingent of police, headed by a D.S.P. and also comprising officials of the Punjab Police, on Tuesday stormed into the Edhi Home at Sohrab Goth, and took away a young married woman who had taken refuge there, Edhi sources said. Humaira Mehmood, 28 years old daughter of a ruling P.M.L. M.P.A. from Okara, Abbas Khokhar, who had taken shelter in the Edhi's Home on November, 27 apprehending that her family would kill her. She is believed to have been flown to Lahore in the evening by a P.I.A. flight by her brother, Ali Abbas, who also accompanied the police party during the raid on the Edhi's Home around 2-15 p.m. The Edhi sources said Humaira, who had married Mehmood Butt had approached the Home on the advice of her husband who was in hiding since they left Lahore about a month ago. Eye-witnesses said several dozens of passers by crowded the Edhi's Home as the policemen, who had come in at least eight mobiles, dragged out the woman who besought the policemen not to take her away. 'They will kill me', she continued to cry hysterically till she was thrown into a mobile van, they said. When contacted, the D.L-G. of Karachi told Dawn that the raid was conducted in accordance with the law and the woman had left her house after estranged relations with her parents." Prior to the raid Ali Abbas made an entry in the Police Station Nazimabad, Karachi (Vide Rapat No.23 dated 1-12-1998) that his sister Humaira Abbas had left the house after having quarrel with her mother; that she is lodged in Edhi Centre and that he be given assistance to recover her (Annexure E in Criminal Miscellaneous No.40-B/99). A similar request was made by D.S.P., Nazimabad vide his letter dated addressed to the Incharge Edhi Centre (Annexure F). Meanwhile a Woman Right Activist took up the matter with the Governor Sindh who intervened in the matter, Humaira was got released from Ali Abbas, her brother, and she was lodged in Darul Amaan by police. The matter was taken up before the Hon'ble Sindh High Court, Karachi in C.P. No.2003 of 1998 and Humaira was allowed to remain in Darul Amaan till further orders. In the report submitted by D.S.P., Nazimabad (Mark E) petitioner's story stands endorsed but the said police officer has given a twisted version. In para. 4 he submitted that "Ali Abbas, the real brother of noted missing girl, submitted copy of station diary entry No.23 of P.S., Nazimabad, letter of undersigned noted above to the Incharge Edhi Home, Karachi and also introduced himself where Incharge Edhi Home allowed to meet him with his noted sister (Humaira). After proceeding all formalities, the authorities of Edhi Home, Karachi handed over the possession of Mst. Humaira to her real brother Ali Abbas. Ali Abbas filled the requisite form of Edhi Home, and also deposited his NIC (photocopy) with Incharge Edhi Home". In para. 6 he stated "Ali Abbas the real brother noted missing girl taken over the possession of his sister Humaira from Edhi Home put due to ???? non-compromised in-between both the noted brother and sister (Ali Abbas and Humaira) the S.D.M., District Central Karachi recorded her statement and allowed her to stay at Darul Amaan, Karachi". (iii) A petition for pre-arrest bail was moved (Criminal Miscellaneous No.40-B/99) and this Court vide order dated 5-1-1999 allowed her interim pre-arrest bail, her appearance before the Court dispensed with till the next date as it was submitted by the learned counsel that her custody being regulated by an order of the Division Bench of Sindh High Court, Karachi in the afore referred case. In the meanwhile, the Sindh High Court on an application made by Mst. Humaira allowed her to leave Darul Amaan and live at a place of her choice and to appear" to before this Court on 3-2-1999 for which date Criminal Miscellaneous No.40-B/99 was fixed before this Court. However, notwithstanding the bail granting order Mst. Humaira and Mehmood Butt were arrested from Karachi Airport whereafter a Women Right Activist filed W.P_No.1472/99 wherein it was apprehended that Humaira's life was in? danger and this Court directed the Inspector-General of Punjab Police to ensure that Humaira Mehmood is produced before this Court on 1-2-1999. It was further directed that the I.G.P. shall be personally responsible for her safety. On the said date Mst. Humaira appeared and narrated the whole story about her forcible abduction from Edhi Centre about intervention by the Governor Sindh, about Sindh High Court's order, about her subsequent arrest, the beating given to her and Mehmood Butt in front of several people at the Karachi Airport. The manner in which they were dragged and were taken in a van to an unknown destination followed by her real brother Ali Abbas. In the statement made before this Court Mst. Humaira and Mehmood Butt both apprehended danger to their lives. Statement of S.-I??? Subah Sadiq was also recorded and in flagrant attempt to conceal the facts he stated ,5 ?"I did go to Edhi Centre to inquire about Rabia alias Nanni but not to ?arrest Humaira. I did not even see Mst. Humaira there. This was on "' 1-12-1998". His close liaison with Humaira's brother is manifest from his answer made to a Court query when he said "I was carrying a? mobile telephone of Ali Abbas, a brother of Mst. Humaira on which I? received a call from CIA Staff, Karachi that Mst. Humaira Mehmood? and Mehmood Butt were planning to leave country. Pursuant to the ????????? afore-referred call I reached Karachi Airport and found a D.S.P. of C.I.A. Staff and an Inspector, namely, Raza Hussain already present there. I effected the arrest of Mst. Humaira Mehmood and Mehmood Butt and her mother Mst. Zeb Naseem who is about fifty years age" .. ... ... ... ... ... ... I made an entry qua the arrest of the aforereferred persons in the Daily Diary of Police Station Karachi Airport, however, I had made no entry about their arrest in the Case Diary of the case registered vide F.I.R. No.601/98 dated 25-12-1998 PS North Cantt., Lahore ... ... ... .... ... ... ... ...During the period that the afore referred accused persons remained in my custody I did not record statement of any one of them. When I went to Karachi to appear before the Sindh High Court it was in my knowledge that this Court had granted prearrest bail to Humaira in Criminal Miscellaneous No.40-B/99".

15. The aforereferred narration of events would show that S.-1. Subah Sadrq of Punjab Police had gone twice to Karachi to effect- Humaira's arrest and in the company of her brother Ali Abbas. On 30-11-1998 they raided Edhi Centre Karachi, forcibly took her out at a time when no case qua her abduction had been registered and it was under the garb of F.I.R. No.524/98 dated 4-11-1998 P.S. North Cantt., Lahore that the entire action was taken. However, when they got exposed at Karachi a case was got registered on 25-12-1998 in the same police station on the statement of Moazzam Ghayas who claimed to be the husband of Humaira and who till 25-12-1998 did not figure anywhere in the proceedings initiated by the local police to effect arrest of Mehmood Butt and Humaira vide F.I.R. No.601/98 dated 25-12-1998. The case registered vide F.I.R. No.524/98 was cancelled on 29-12-1998 as it was found that Nazir Ahmad complainant had falsely reported about the abduction of Rabia alias Nannt as his niece and in fact he wanted to help his friend Malik Abbas Khokhar whose daughter had been abducted.

16. The ease registered vide F. I. R. No.601/98 dated 25-12-1998 P. S.North Cantt., Lahore is mala fide, on the face of it as it was registered after a delay of two months of the alleged occurrence of abduction. How can a husband keep quiet for two months over abduction of his wife particularly when the said? wife (Humaira) happens to be the only daughter of a sitting M.P.A. belonging to the ruling party and is the real cousin of Moazzam Ghayas. The Investigating Officer (Abdul Rauf Dogar, S.P., C.I.A., Lahore) gave no finding about the veracity of the story given in F.I.R. No.601/98 and it was only on the query made by this Court that he gave his finding in Court on 10-2-1999 that the version given in the F.I.R. qua abduction of Humaira was false and that ????? Humaira as a matter of fact had left her house of her own choice. Humaira alleged to open Court that the Investigating Officer had told him that if she was his daughter he would have been killed her. Her learned counsel Miss Hina Jilani. Advocate alleged that the statements of Nikah witnesses were not being recorded correctly. On a direction of this Court the Investigating Officer was made to read out the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. of Shahbaz who isr'' witness of Nikah who was present in Court and the witness alleged that this was? not his correct version and there has been interpolations in the statement. When I directed him to record his statement afresh, learned counsel for the respondent 'Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar, Advocate objected that the Court cannot direct the Investigating Officer to record the statement of a witness afresh. I overruled the objection. However, to allay the apprehension of the witness I directed him to place on record his affidavit and give a copy of the same to the Investigating Officer. On the following day the Nikah Khawan appeared and stated on Oath .that he had been threatened by the police not to bring out the correct version and not to state that he had performed the Nikah of Humaira with Mehmood Butt. This witness apprehended danger to his life. His statement was recorded in Court and the Investigating Officer was directed to record his statement outside the Court as well. The Investigating Officer appeared before this Court on 3-2-1999, 8-2-1999, 9-2-1999, 10-2-1999 and 11-2-1999 but expressed his inability to trace out either Nikah Khawan or the Registrar. It was only on the direction of this Court that the learned Advocate-General, Punjab after efforts produced the Nikah Registrar along with the Nikah Register evidencing Nikah Humaira with Mehmood Butt which indicated that the Nikah was performed the same day when it was entered in the relevant register at Serial No.414 on 16-5-1997 whereas the alleged Nikah of Moazzam Ghayas complainant-respondent with Humaira was purported to have been performed on 14-4-1997 but his entry in the register is after one year and two months.

17. This Court would not have ordinarily exercised jurisdiction under Article 199. of the Constitution to quash the criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to the registration of the aforereferred case but in face of the bias and the mala fide shown by the police officials who handled this case not only at the S.I./S.H.O. level but at the S.S.P. level and the S.P., C.I.A. level I am of the view that any restraint at this stage would not only be unjust but would tantamount to abdication of the powers vested in this Court to put a check on the State functionaries who abuse their lawful duty to help a particular individual and promote their personal interests. Besides the mala fides referred to above it has clearly been brought on record, rather conceded by the police that the occurrence alleged in F.I.R. No.601/98 P.S., North Cantt., Lahore is false. J? Even on the question of conflicting Nikahs the weights of material brought on record tilts in favour of Humaira and Mehmood Butt and in absence of a conclusive finding of a Family Court against this marriage no prosecution can be launched in the peculiar facts of this case.

18. Coming to the role of the State functionaries in this case I find that the police officials who handled this case passed orders and acted in a manner which betrayed total disregard of law of the land and mandate of their calling. Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan guarantees that everybody shall be treated strictly in accordance with law. Article 35 of the Constitution provides that the State shall protect the marriage, the family, the mother and the child. As Member of the International Comity of Nations we must respect the International Instruments of Human Rights to which we are a patty. Pakistan is a Member of United Nations and is signatory to the "Convention on the Elmination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women" which in its Article 16 enjoins all the member states as under:- "I. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate, discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations and in particular shall ensure on a basis of equality of men and women:- (a)??????? the same right to enter into marriage; (b)??????? the same right freely to choose a spouse and to enter into marriage only with their free and full consent; (c)??????? the same rights and responsibilities during marriage and at its dissolution. " At a Conference attended by representatives of all the Islamic countries including Pakistan a Resolution was adopted which is known as Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam dated 5th August 1990 (Encyclopaedia of Human Rights by Edward Lawson, 2nd Edition at page 176) stipulates as under:- "Article 5.--(a) The family is the foundation of society, and marriage is the basis of its formation. Men and women have the right to marriage, and no restrictions stemming from race, colour or nationality shall prevent them from enjoying this right. ?(b) Society and the State shall remove all obstacles to marriage and shall facilitate marital procedure. They shall ensure family protection and welfare. ?"Article 6.--(a) Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has rights to enjoy as well as duties to perform; she has her own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name and lineage. (b)??????? The husband is responsible for the support and welfare of the family."

19. The police officials are guardians of the lives, liberties and the honour of the citizens. They owe their place in society to the taxes which are paid by the citizens. If these guards become pouchers then no society and no State can have even a semblance of human rights and rule of law. It is not possible for this Court to enter into a detailed inquiry or fix liability of the wrongs done and violations made. However, S.I. Subah Sadiq has confessed before this Court that he went to Karachi to arrest Rabia alias Nanni a fake and non-existent person though he tried to hide the real purpose that it was Mst. Humaira whom he wanted to arrest on 30-11-1998-but the case diary and the Press clipping belie his stand. He conceded that he arrested Humaira and Mehmood on 29-1-1999and brought them to Lahore and that he was aware that Humaira was on pre arrest bail granted by this Court. He was party to the manner in which both of them were beaten at the Karachi Airport, they were put under a restraint and were being taken to an unknown place, their arrest was not shown even in the case diary which lends credence to the allegations levelled by Humaira and Mehmood Butt that they could have been done to death had this Court not intervened.

20. At a socio-moral plane the case had certain disconcerting overtones. Humaira was to be given in marriage to Moazzam in exchange of the latter's sister who was married to Humaria's brother. On the one hand there was anguish and pain of a father whose daughter had rebelled and refused to marry a person of his choice and had left her hearth and home to join some one with whom she had contracted marriage. The father called it a sinful act and was not prepared to accept her under any circumstances. On the other hand there was a girl in distress, who lost prime of her youth, waiting for a parental permission to join a husband of her choice. She was in a critical dilemma i.e. of facing the social consequence of going back to a family fold where she stood eternally stigmatised or to go back with Mehmood whom she stood married to.' The former course was full of tension, uncertainty and carried a death threat whereas in the later course although there was a death threat yet it meant a fulfilment of her desire, where she dreamt of security and if she survived the death threat she hoped for an ultimate release from the high walls of a feudal bound age. She chose the later course and wanted the society to accept it. Perhaps she was not asking for too, much at this age of her life but she was refused. On disclosure of her marriage she was beaten up, taken to the Surgical theatre of a Governmental-run hospital, her entire body was bandaged and was detained there for a month but she persevered. As per her perception a mock drama of her marriage with Moazzam Ghayas was staged where arranged (sic) where she cried and sobbed but the parents could not persuade her to join him. No Rukhsati was performed and when they tried to force her she left the house. She was chased, harassed, abused, beaten and disgraced. This treatment was meted out to the only daughter of a father and at later's behest and the real brother spear-headed it.

21. As Muslims we loudly proclaim our commitment to the lofty ideals of an Islamic Ideology. The advent of Islam was a milestone in human civilization. It came at a time when women were treated as serfs and chattel. Instances were not lacking when men used to bury their daughters alive. It was Islam which declared equality between a man and a woman. In matters of marriage a woman was given equal right to choose her life partner. After obtaining the age of puberty she could exercise her option and choice. Unfortunately, in our practical lives we are influenced by a host of other prejudices bequeathed by history, tradition and feudalism. The self-righteousness demonstrated by the respondents in calling her "adulterous" the manner in which she was hunted like a prey and the way the State functionaries become partners in a feudal vendetta notwithstanding the mandate of their office in getting their pound of flesh, reminded the Court of George Bernard Shaw's criticism of Englishmen in his Drama, "The man of Destiny", he said: "There is nothing so bad or so good that you will not find Englishman doing; but you will never find an Englishman in the wrong. He does everything on principle. He fights you on patriotic principles; he robs you on business principles; he enslaves you on imperial principles. "

22. Behind the evangelistic facade there was a certain culture at play It is that culture which needs to be tamed by law and an objective understanding of the Islamic values. Let us do a little self-accountability and little soul searching both individually and collectively. Let there be no contradiction in our thoughts and actions. Male chauvinism, feudal bias and compulsions of a conceited ego should not be confused with Islamic values. An enlightened approach is called for otherwise an obsecurantism in this field may break the social fabric. 23.?????? For what has been discussed above I hold and direct as under:-- (i)???????? That the material brought on record shows that the case registered vide? F.I.R. No.601 of 1998 dated 25-12-1998 under sections 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) and 380, P_P.C. P.S. North Cantt., Lahore is false as no occurrence of the kind alleged ever took place. Prima facie the Nikah of Humaira with p Mehmood is valid and no prosecution under the Hudood Laws can be initiated without a conclusive finding of a Family Court against the Nikah in question. The case registered and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto reflect mala fides, those are, therefore, of no legal effect and are hereby quashed: (ii)??????? the documents placed on record, the statements of petitioner Humaira and the witnesses of Nikah including the Nikah Khawan, the entries made in the Nikah Registers and the video film produced before this Court on behalf of the complainant, prima facie lead to the conclusion that Humaira's Nikah with Mehmood was prior in time. The later Nikah, during the subsistence of the earlier one and lacking her consent is void-in Islam. Even otherwise as both the spouses have acknowledged the Nikah dated 16-5-1997 a presumption of truth is attached to it under the law; (iii)?????? by lying before this Court that he had gone to Karachi to effect the arrest of Rabia alias Nanni (a fake person) and not Humaira in the last week of November, 1998 and by making a confession before this Court that in the first week of January, 1999, he arrested Humaira from Karachi notwithstanding the pre-arrest bail granted to her by this Court, Subah Sadiq, S.-I. obstructed the process of justice and thereby committed a gross contempt of this Court. He is, therefore, convicted under section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act and sentenced to one month's S.I. on two counts and a fine of Rs.5,000 (Rupees five thousand only) on two counts in default whereof he shall further undergo S.I. for fifteen days on each count. The sentences shall run concurrently. He shall be lodged in District Jail, Lahore to serve the sentence. (iv)?????? The conduct of some of the police officials connected with the case including the present Investigating Officer needs scrutiny. The Inspector-General of Police, Punjab shall depute an officer not below the rank of a D.I.-G. to proceed against them departmentally. (v)??????? In view of the serious allegations levelled by Mst. Humaira that when her Nikah with Mehmood Butt was brought to light she was beaten, tortured and taken to the Services Hospital, Lahore, bandaged and kept there in confinement for a period of one month??? The Medical Superintendent of Services Hospital, Lahore is directed to inquire into the matter and proceed against the del inqueni_ officials in accordance with law. ? (vi) Photostat copy of the entire files of case F.I.Rs. No.524 of 1998 and No.601 of 1998 of P.S. North Cantt., Lahore shall be retained on the record and the original shall be returned to the Investigating Officer.The video film (Mark-C) is also being retained. The original Passport of Mehmood Butt impounded by this Court's order dated 1-2-1999 shall be returned to him forthwith.

24. Writ Petitions Nos. 1472 of ,1999 and 420 of 1999 are allowed in the abovenoted term.. N.H.Q./H-87/L?? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.