2005 PLP 841 (YLR)

Tanvir Ahmad Shamsi, Addl. A.‑G. along with $her Ali, A.S.‑I. for the State. Date of hearing: 22nd June, 2004. Through the instant petition quashment of F.I.R. No. 46, dated 28‑4‑2004 under sections 452, 379, 148, 149, P.P.C. read with section 10 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII, 1979 Police Station Mankera registered in pursuance of order, dated 27‑4‑2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Mankera, has been sought inter alia on the ground that the petitioners were married inter se about 6‑1 /2 years before and out of the wedlock two sons Muhammad Imran and Muhammad Akram aged 5 years and 3 years were born. It was exchange marriage. The petitioner No.2's sister was married with the complainant. Due to strained relations of sister of petitioner No.2 with complainant, the petitioner No. 1 was also asked to leave her husband and suit for dissolution of marriage was got filed on her behalf, which was decreed vide judgment, dated 3‑4‑2003 but thereafter petitioner No. 1 before the divorce decree was given effect in Union Council again joined the petitioner No.2 after reconciliation and is happily residing with him, therefore, the above‑said F.I.R. got registered by her father is false and is liable to be quashed.

2. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the petition and argued that marriage was dissolved through Court and after one year petitioner No.1 could not join petitioner No.2 as decree of divorce has become final. Adds that petitioner No.1 was forcibly abducted by petitioner No.2 with the help of his companions. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Addl. A.G. also opposes the quashment.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.

4. Petitioner No. 1 the alleged abductee is star witness of the case. She has categorically denied the allegations having been abducted by petitioner No.2. She states that she has joined petitioner No. 2 of her own free‑will. She has not supported the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. Case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 has re‑joined petitioner No.2 within 90 days before the divorce had become effective, therefore, question of her abduction or commission of Zina does not arise. Further more in terms of section 7(6) of Family Laws Ordinance which reads as under:‑‑ "Nothing shall debar a wife whose marriage has been terminated by talaq effective under this section from remarrying the same husband, without an intervening marriage with a third person, unless such termination is for the third time so effective." No criminal case has been made' cut against the petitioner.

5. In view the circumstances of the case and in order to protect family life of the petitioner, the writ petition is accepted and F.I.R. No. 46, dated 28‑4‑2004 under sections 452, 379, 148 and 149, P.P.C. read with section 10 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 Police Station Mankera being baseless is hereby quashed. H.B.T./K‑73/L Petition accepted.