2014SAC8041 (PLP)

This petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 27-2-2014 passed by the learned single Judge of the Chief Court, whereby, the application, filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., for the quashment of FIR No. 35/2013 dated 22-10-2013, registered with Police Station City Astore, was accepted and the order dated 14-3-2014 passed by another learned single Judge of the Chief Court with regard to the reinvestigation of the case FIR No. 35/2013 ibid whereby application filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. for reinvestigation was disposed of.

2. The facts in brief of the case are that a case FIR No. 35/2013 dated 22-10-2013 was registered with Police Station City Astore under sections 365-B/114, P.P.C. read with sections 9/14 of Hudood Ordinance, 1979. This crime was reported by Sadaqat Ali son of Wallayat Ali against Janan, Farman sons of Ulfat, Iqbal, Imtiaz sons of Farman, Mubashir son of Janan and Israr son of Mushtaq for the abduction of Mst. Raheela daughter of Muhammad Ramzan and wife of Sadaqat Ali complainant.

3. On the registration of the said case, the investigation was entrusted to one Hameed Ullah ASI who started conducting the investigation of the said case. The alleged abductee was recovered from the house of her father and her statement was recorded on 23-10-2013, wherein, she stated that she was married with complaint against her will. She statedly stayed in the house of her spouse for about two days. Since, she did not want to live with the complainant as his wife, the relation between them became estranged and she left the house of Sadaqat Ali of her own. She narrated a long story in her statement. The investigator, after recording her statement, produced her before the Judicial Magistrate and got registered her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. too. She stated before the Magistrate that the marriage of the alleged abductee was performed against her free will and she was forcefully sent to the house of Sadaqat Ali. The perusal of the record and the statements made by her before the investigator as well as before the judicial Magistrate makes it abundantly clear that she was not abducted by anybody, rather, she left the house of her husband with her free will. The record revealed further that she has also filed a suit in the court of competent jurisdiction for dissolution of marriage.

4. Mubashir son of Janan, one of the alleged accused moved an application under section 561-A Cr.P.C. before the vacation Judge of the Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan for the quashment of FIR No. 35/2013 dated 22-10-2013 on 24th January, 2014. The learned vacation Judge vide its judgment dated 27-2-2014 quashed the FIR in question mainly on the ground that the alleged abductee had made a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. before the judicial Magistrate in which she had categorically stated that she was not abducted by anybody and further that she had left the house of her husband with her free will and no pressure was exerted by anybody in any manner whatsoever. She left the house of her husband as the marriage was solemnized without her consent.

5. It is pertinent to point out that the application of the complainant for the reinvestigation, filed before the Chief Court on 29-10-2013, remained pending when the quashment of FIR was allowed on 27-2-2014. Later on the application, made under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., for the reinvestigation came up for hearing before the learned Chief Judge of the Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan and the same was disposed of vide Order dated 14-3-2014, mainly on the ground that there was no FIR in existence and no such order for re-investigation could be passed. Thus, feeling aggrieved, the complainant of the FIR called in question both the orders i.e. dated 27-2-2014 and the order dated 14-3-2014 through this petition for grant of leave before this court.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at full length and perused the record of the case with the able assistance of the learned Advocate General Gilgit-Baltistan.

7. The survey of the record clearly indicates that the marriage of the alleged abductee Mst. Raheela with Sadaqat Ali son of Walayat Ali was celebrated reportedly on 20-10-2013. She left the house of her husband after two days and went to the house of her father as she had statedly never given her consent for the marriage with Sadaqat Ali. The case was got registered by Sadaqat Ali on the ground that she was abducted by aforesaid accused persons. The inspection of the record transpires further that the alleged abductee was recovered from the house of her father, although she had differently stated before the police that she herself had informed the Police while hiding herself at deserted place. Be that as it may, the investigator, on her recovery, immediately recorded her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. as a first Statement of the abductee. The investigating officer thereafter, produced her in the Court of circle judicial Magistrate and there she recorded her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate recorded statement after completing all the legal formalities. It is worthy to note that Mst. Raheela alleged abductee in an unequivocal manner stated in the aforementioned statement that she was absolutely not abducted by anybody. The marriage with Sadaqat Ali was performed under threats of dire consequences and against her free will. The documents of the performance of marriage were executed under coercion.

8. Shorn of all other unnecessary details, it is crystal clear from the record that Mst. Raheela, the said abductee, was the star Witness of the prosecution to substantiate its case in the court, when she herself does not support the case of the prosecution, it would all be nothing except to do a futile exercise to probe further in the matter and drag the alleged accused as well as the said abductee. The prosecution has very wisely acted in this case because the circumstances of the case are such that the same is bound to fail as no witness along with the alleged abductee has come ahead to support the case of the complainant. The examination of the record prepared till date by the prosecution reveals further that the prosecution could not collect any sort of evidence by which any connection of the accused with regard to the abduction of Mst. Raheela could be made part of the file. During the course of arguments the learned counsel has very frankly admitted that a suit for dissolution of marriage has also been filed against the complainant in the court of competent jurisdiction. In view of what has been narrated in preceding paragraphs, we do not want to go deep into the matter as the petitioner has yet not been left remediless and our observation of any nature may cause prejudice to the case of either of the parties.

9. The up shot of the above discussion is that the instant petition has no substance and same is dismissed being meritless. Leave refused. HBT/23/GB Leave refused.