2002 PLP 787 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑S. 11‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Quashing of F.I.R.‑‑‑Both accused admitted their marriage before the Court and a child had also born in wedlock‑‑‑No useful purpose could be served by allowing to proceed with trial rather same would be misuse of law and process of Court ‑‑‑Challan had been submitted during pendency of Constitutional petition for quashing of F.I.R. which had shown clear mala fide on the part of prosecution‑‑ Constitutional petition for quashing of F.I.R. was allowed in interest of justice in circumstances. Mansoor‑ul-Islam Khan Joyia for Petitioners. Nasim Sabir Ch., Asstt. A.‑G. for Respondents Nos. 1 and

2. Muhammad Sher Cheema for Respondent. No.3. Date of hearing: 24th October, 2001. The grievance of the petitioner is that they married inter se on 19‑5‑2000 and subsequently petitioner No.1 filed a Writ Petition No.1113 of 2000 at. Multan Bench seeking direction restraining S.H.O. Police Station Luddan and S.H..O. Police Station, Tarkhan Wala. Later on, a Writ Petition No. 1571 of 2001 was filed at the Principal Seat for the same relief, wherein S.H.O. Tarkhan Wala submitted his comments denying the allegations for causing harassment and stating that as it is a matrimonial affair so the allegations were denied by him. The case F.I.R. No. 82 of 2001 was got registered by Muhammad Ramzan. Respondent No.3 for abduction of Mst. Nighat Parveen, petitioner No.1 on 4‑5‑2001. The petitioners had applied for their pre‑arrest bail before this Court which was allowed through Criminal Miscellaneous No.3967‑B of 2001 as they apprehended foul play at the hands of the complainant as it was alleged that if they had to approach the Court for first instance. Now the petitioners have sought quashment of said F.I.R. and out of wedlock a son has been born and the alleged detenue Nighat Parveen does not support the prosecution version and the proceedings initiated on the basis of the F.I.R. will be without any use. The petition has been opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant and also by the learned Law Officer by arguing that the challan of the case has already been submitted in Court. It has been further argued by learned counsel for the complainant that the alleged Nikahnama dated 19‑5‑2000 has been found not entered in the record and Ghulam Mustafa, alleged Nikahkhawan has also sworn affidavit denying the factum of performance of the Nikah between the petitioners. Whatever the case may be, since both the petitioners admit their marriage before the Court and the child has also born out of the wedlock, therefore, no useful purpose can be served by allowing to proceed with the trial rather the same will be misused of law and process of court. It is further noticed that, instant writ petition was fixed on 9‑10‑2001 and learned counsel for the complainant had put in appearance on behalf of complainant and sought time to prepare his brief, but it has been stated toady that challan of the case has been submitted on 9‑10‑2001 which was admittedly after submission of comments, which shows clear mala fide on the part of the prosecution as the challan has been submitted during the pendency of the instant petition, therefore, in the interest of justice, I am pursuaded to allow this petition and the proceedings initiated on the basis of case F.I.R. No. 82 of 2001 dated 4‑5‑2001 registered with Police Station Tarkhan Wala stands quashed.. H.B.T./N‑163/L F.I.R. quashed.