2006 PLP 1594 (YLR)
SHAHID ALI CHATHA — Petitioner Versus S.H.O. POLICE STATION, SADDAR DASKA and 5 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1594 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J |
| Parties | SHAHID ALI CHATHA — Petitioner Versus S.H.O. POLICE STATION, SADDAR DASKA and 5 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1594 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1594 (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: 2006 PLP 1594 (YLR) (SHAHID ALI CHATHA — Petitioner Versus S.H.O. POLICE STATION, SADDAR DASKA and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khawaja Waseem Abbas for Petitioner.
- Syed Hasnain Kazmi for Respondent No.6.
- A.A.-G. for Respondent No.1. Nemo for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 25th January, 2006.
- 2. The petitioner as well as respondents Nos.3 to 5 are in attendance before this Court today and the alleged abductee namely Mst. Nadia Parveen alias Mst. Nazia Parveen is also present before this Court in person (identified by the learned counsel for the petitioner). On the last date of hearing this Court had directed the complainant as well as the Investigating Officer of this case to appear before this Court in person today and the said order had been communicated to them not only by the office of this Court but also by the office of the learned Advocate-General, Punjab, on telephone but unfortunately they have not bothered to enter appearance. This shows that they do not want to resist this petition as they have nothing available with them to oppose the same. The alleged abductee has stated her age to be about twenty years and has, thus, claimed to be puberty, major, adult, and sui juris for all intents and purposes. She has categorically and emphatically maintained before this Court that she has not been abducted or enticed away by anybody as alleged in the impugned F.I.R. and that she had left the house of respondent No.2 on her own whereafter she has contracted marriage with the present petitioner on 31-12-2005 of her own free will and volition which fact is evidenced by a registered Nikah Nama a copy whereof has been appended with this petition as Annexure-A. The alleged abductee happens to be the star prosecution witness in this case and if she does not support the prosecution's case then there is little Likelihood of the petitioner and his co-accused being convicted for the alleged offence at the end of the day. It appears that by lodging the impugned F.I.R. respondent No.2 has tried to convert a matrimonial issue into a criminal case so as to bring the weight of criminal law to bear upon the spouses so as to break their resolve as well as their matrimony. In these circumstances registration of the impugned F.I.R. has appeared to me to be nothing but an abuse of the process of law which cannot be allowed by this Court to be perpetuated. This petition is, therefore, allowed with no order as to costs and the impugned F.I.R. is hereby quashed.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.11
Constitutional petition
Quashing of F.I.R.
Alleged abductee had stated her age to be about twenty years and had claimed to be major, adult and sui juris to all intents and purposes
Lady had categorically and emphatically maintained before High Court that she had not been abducted or enticed away by anybody as alleged in impugned F.I.R.; and that she had left the house of respondent on her own; whereafter she had contracted marriage with petitioner of her own free will and volition which fact was evidenced by a registered Nikah Nama-Alleged abductee happened to be the star prosecution witness, and if she did not support case of prosecution, then there was little likelihood of petitioner and his co-accused being convicted for alleged offence
Respondent by lodging impugned F.I.R., had tried to convert a matrimonial issue into a criminal case so as to bring weight of criminal law to bear upon spouses to break their resolve as well as their matrimony
Registration of impugned F.I.R., in circumstances appeared to be nothing, but an abuse of process of law which could not be allowed to be perpetuated
Impugned F.I.R. was quashed, in circumstances. Respondents Nos.3, 4 and 5 in Person. Alleged Abductee in person.
Judgment & Decree
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.
Through this petition the petitioner has sought quashing of F.I.R. No.436 registered at Police Station, Sadar, Daska, District Sialkot on 26-12-2005 in respect of an offence under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The said criminal case has been lodged by respondent No.2 herein in respect of an alleged abduction of his daughter namely Mst. Nadia Parveen alias Mst. Nazia Parveen by the petitioner, respondents Nos.3 to 6 and another.
2. The petitioner as well as respondents Nos.3 to 5 are in attendance before this Court today and the alleged abductee namely Mst. Nadia Parveen alias Mst. Nazia Parveen is also present before this Court in person (identified by the learned counsel for the petitioner). On the last date of hearing this Court had directed the complainant as well as the Investigating Officer of this case to appear before this Court in person today and the said order had been communicated to them not only by the office of this Court but also by the office of the learned Advocate-General, Punjab, on telephone but unfortunately they have not bothered to enter appearance. This shows that they do not want to resist this petition as they have nothing available with them to oppose the same. The alleged abductee has stated her age to be about twenty years and has, thus, claimed to be puberty, major, adult, and sui juris for all intents and purposes. She has categorically and emphatically maintained before this Court that she has not been abducted or enticed away by anybody as alleged in the impugned F.I.R. and that she had left the house of respondent No.2 on her own whereafter she has contracted marriage with the present petitioner on 31-12-2005 of her own free will and volition which fact is evidenced by a registered Nikah Nama a copy whereof has been appended with this petition as Annexure-A. The alleged abductee happens to be the star prosecution witness in this case and if she does not support the prosecution's case then there is little Likelihood of the petitioner and his co-accused being convicted for the alleged offence at the end of the day. It appears that by lodging the impugned F.I.R. respondent No.2 has tried to convert a matrimonial issue into a criminal case so as to bring the weight of criminal law to bear upon the spouses so as to break their resolve as well as their matrimony. In these circumstances registration of the impugned F.I.R. has appeared to me to be nothing but an abuse of the process of law which cannot be allowed by this Court to be perpetuated. This petition is, therefore, allowed with no order as to costs and the impugned F.I.R. is hereby quashed. H.B.T./S-69/L Petition allowed.