YLR 2002

2002 PLP 1108 (YLR)

NASREEN BIBI and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION, JHALL CHAKIAN, DISTRICT, SARGODHA and others‑‑‑Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Writ Petition No. 19024 of 2001, decided on 11th December, 2001.
Honorable Judges
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2002 PLP 1108 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J
Parties NASREEN BIBI and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION, JHALL CHAKIAN, DISTRICT, SARGODHA and others‑‑‑Respondents
Primary Law Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1108 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1108 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1108 (YLR) (NASREEN BIBI and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION, JHALL CHAKIAN, DISTRICT, SARGODHA and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑‑

Representation

  • Ch. Muhammad Aslam Sandhu for Petitioners.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑‑S.11‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.337 -H(2)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 ‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑ Maintainability‑‑‑Quashing of F.I.R.‑‑ Questions whether female accused had been abducted by the male accused, whether female accused was already married to somebody else as alleged in the F.I.R. and whether the facts mentioned in the F.I.R. regarding the occurrence were correct or not, required holding of a factual inquiry which could not be done by the High Court in the summary proceedings under Art.199 of the Constitution‑‑‑Police being under statutory duty to investigate the crime reported to it, High Court would not stifle the same at such a premature stage‑‑‑Constitutional petition, even otherwise, was not maintainable in view of the availability of other statutory remedies to the accused‑‑‑Investigating Officer was bound to conduct the investigation justly, fairly and strictly in accordance with law after recording oral and documentary evidence of both the parties and keeping both the versions before him‑‑‑Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Haji Muhammad Sadiq v Ilaqa Magistrate of Police Station Factory Area, Faisalabad and others 2001 PCr.LJ 1571; Farrukh Salim v. The State PLD 1997 Lah. 385 and Qaiser Mehmood v Muhammad Shafi and another PLD 1998 Lah.72 ref. Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Mahl for the Complainant. Muhammad Shan Gul for the State.

Judgment & Decree

Haji Muhammad Sadiq v Ilaqa Magistrate of Police Station Factory Area, Faisalabad and others 2001 PCr.LJ 1571; Farrukh Salim v. The State PLD 1997 Lah. 385 and Qaiser Mehmood v Muhammad Shafi and another PLD 1998 Lah.72 ref. Ch. Muhammad Aslam Sandhu for Petitioners. Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Mahl for the Complainant. Muhammad Shan Gul for the State. Through this petition the petitioners have sought quashment of F.I.R. No.216 registered at Police Station Jhal. Chakian, District Sargodha on 6‑7‑2001 for an offence under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 337‑H (2), P.P.C. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the present petition is that both the petitioners are major and sui juris and that they have contracted marriage with each other of their own‑free will and violation and that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. are concoction incarnate. As against that the learned counsel for the complainant has maintained that petitioner No. 1 was already married to another person and, therefore, her claimed Nikah with petitioner No.2 per se amounts to commission of Zina which is culpable.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been felt by this Court that the question whether petitioner No.1 had in fact been abducted/enticed away by petitioner No.2 or not as also the question whether petitioner No. 1 was already married to somebody else as alleged in the F.I.R. or not and also the question whether the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. regarding the occurrence in question are correct or not are all questions requiring holding of a factual inquiry which exercise cannot be undertaken by this Court in the present summary proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution. It is a statutory duty of the police to investigate a crime reported to it and this Court would not like to scuttle or stifle the said duty of the police at such premature stage. Even otherwise the petitioners have many remedies available to them and in view of availability of those statutory remedies the present petition before this Court is not maintainable. A reference in this regard may be made to the cases of Haji Muhammad Sadiq v Ilaqa Magistrate of Police Station Factory Area, Faisalabad and others (2001 PCr.LJ 1571); Farrukh Salim v The State (PLD 1997 Lahore 385), (D.B). and Qaiser Mehmood v Muhammad Shafi and another (PLD 1998 Lahore 72). In these circumstances no occasion has been found by this Court for interference in the matter at such a stage.

3. It, however, goes without saying that the Investigating Officer is bound to record the versions of the petitioners, to receive their oral and documentary evidence on the record of investigation and then to conduct the investigation justly, fairly and strictly in accordance with law while keeping both the versions before him. It is, therefore, expected that if the petitioners approach the Investigating Officer of this case in that regard then he shall do the needful purely on merits.

4. With the observations made above this petition is hereby dismissed. N.H.Q./N‑157/L Petition dismissed.