2005 PLP 1622 (YLR)

Ss. 10 & 11

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199

Constitutional petition

Quashing of F.I.R.

Alleged abductee had sated her age to be about eighteen years and had claimed to be puberty, abdult, major and sui juris

Even in impugned F.I.R. age of alleged abductee had been recorded as eighteen years

Alleged abductee had categorically maintained that allegations contained in the F.I.R. in respect of her alleged abduction and also in respect of commission of Zina with her were factually incorrect-Lady had further maintained that as a matte of fact she had left the house of complainant of her own and had thereafter contracted marriage with accused on her own free-will and volition which fact was evidenced by a registered Nikah Nama

Complainant did not appear to be interested in the matter any further as he had not bothered to enter appearance before High Court, despite his appearance was required by the Court which had created an impression that complainant was not interested in opposing petition or contesting the matter

Alleged abductee who was star prosecution witness in respect of allegation regarding her abduction, had categorically and emphatically controverted such allegations

Lady had further maintained that her relationship with accused was conjugal and matrimonial, rather than carnal or illegal

Allegation qua commission of Zina by accused, was unfounded, in circumstances-Lodging of F.I.R. by complainant, in circumstances appeared to be an outcome of nothing, but malice and frustration on the part of complainant

allowing such F.I.R. to continue to hold the filed amounted to an abuse of the process of law which could not be allowed to be perpetuated

F.I.R. was quashed, in circumstances. Ch. Imran Raza Chadhar for Petitioners. Najeed Faisal Chaudhry, Addl. A.-G. for Respondent. Nemo for Respondent No. 3 despite service. Date of hearing: 18th June, 2003. Through this petition the petitioners have sought quashing of F.I.R. No. 196 registered at Police Station City Mandi Bahauddin on 29-5-2003 for offences under sections 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The said F.I.R. had been lodged by respondent No. 3 herein in respect of an alleged abduction of his daughter, petitioner No. 2 herein and others and also in respect of an alleged commission of Zina by the petitioners with each other.

2. Both the petitioners are present before this Court in person today. The Police Officer present before this Court has identified the petitioners to be the accused persons and the alleged abducted respectively in the above mentioned criminal case. Mst. Naila Parveen petitioner No. 2 has stated her age to be puberty, adult major and hence sui juris. Even in the impugned F.I.R. her age has been recorded as eighteen years. Petitioner No. 2 as categorically maintained before this Court that the allegations contained in the impugned F.I.R. in respect of her alleged abduction and also in respect of commission of Zina with her are factually incorrect. She has further maintained that a matter of fact she had left the house of respondent No. 3 of her own and had thereafter contracted marriage with petitioner No. 1 on 5-5-2003 of her own free-will and volition which fact is evidenced by a registered Nikah Nama (a copy of whereof has been appended with this petition as (Annexure "A"). The Police Officer present before this Court has informed that he had personally intimated respondent No. 3 about the order passed by this Court on 10-6-2003 requiring his appearance before this Court, today but, according to him, respondent No. 3 does not appear to be interested in the matter any further and he has not bothered to enter appearance before this Court today. This creates an impression that respondent No. 3 is not interested in opposing this petition or contenting the matter. Mst. Naila Parveen petitioner No. 2 happens to be the star prosecution witness in respect of the allegation regarding her abduction levelled in the impugned F.I.R. and she has categorically and emphatically controverted such an allegation. She has further maintained that her relationship with petitioner is conjugal and matrimonial rather than carnal or illegal and, thus, even the allegation qua commission of Zina by the petitioners is unfounded. In these circumstances lodging of the impugned F.I.R. by respondent No.3 has appeared to this Court to be an outcome of nothing but malice and frustration on the part of respondent No.3. Allowing such F.I.R. to continue to hold the field is to amount to an abuse of the process of law which cannot be allowed by this Court to be perpetuated. This petition is, therefore admitted to regular hearing and allowed with no order as to costs and the impugned F.I.R. is hereby quashed. H.B.T./T-72/L F.I.R. quashed.