1989 PLP 4985 (MLD)

The applicants seek quashment of the proceedings under section 14 of Zina Ordinance instituted against them on the basis of F.I.R. No. 393 of 1983 lodged by Niaz Ahmad on 31-10-1983 at P.S. New Karachi. The applicants state that they have been falsely involved in the case and that the complainant and P.Ws. are all fictitious persons and that is why none of them could be served or examined during the last six years. Summary of the F.I.R. is given below: "I live in New Abadi, New Karachi for 1-1/2 months. About five months ago I happened to meet Ameer Hussain Bangali. I expressed to him my desire to get married. He told me that he had a sister and was willing to marry her to me. I agreed and married his sister Mst. Malka the very next day. Ameer Hussain obtained Rs. 9,500 from me for arranging this marriage. Thereafter I shifted to Korangi alongwith my wife and then to the present address. About 10/12 days ago, Ameer Hussain's brother Sami-ud-Din brought three girls to my house and said they were relatives of my wife and left them at my house and himself went away. He again came on 29-10-1983 and took away Mst. Rahima. After he had gone away, I found that my Nikahnama was missing from my house. I then realized that Ameer Hussain and his brother were doing the business of selling girls for adultery. Samiullah will again come to my house to fetch the other two girls Rehana and Amna Bibi for selling them."

2. The F.I.R is rather unconvincing. The applicants, the three girls and complainant Niaz Ahmad all appear to be persons of shady character. Even so it was the duty of the prosecution to produce evidence within a reasonable time but a perusal of the diary sheet of the Court right from 30-11-1983 till 7-3-1988 shows that the prosecution has taken no interest in the case, the applicants have been attending the Court during all these 5-1/2 years but the prosecution failed to produce even a single witness. Even the Investigating Officer did not even once appear in the Court. I am satisfied that the continuance of these proceedings is abuse of the process of the Court in the extreme. In 1980 P.Cr. L J 1018 (Atlas Khan v. Azam Khan) three witnesses were examined during a period of five years and yet it was held that the prosecution was abusing the process of the Court. In 1977 P Cr. L J 447 (Muhammad Aslam v. Muhammad Ali) proceedings were quashed because they were pending for 3-1/2 years. The callousness of the prosecution in this case is worse than in the abovementioned judgments. Since the pendency of the proceedings is an extreme example of abuse of process of law, it would quash the proceedings pending against the applicants before Ist Additional Sessions Judge Karachi (Central) in Case No. 294 of 1988 under section 14 of Zina Ordinance. The bail bonds of the applicants stand discharged. Before parting with the case I cannot help observing that it was a fit case for action under section 265-K of Cr.P. C. if the learned Additional Sessions Judge had cared to apply his mind. M.Y.H./S-430/K Proceedings quashed.