2004 P Cr (PLP)

Ch. Ghulam Mustafa Bandesha for Petitioners. Inayat Ullah Niazi for Respondent No.

1. Najeeb Faisal Chaudhary, Addl. A.‑G. for Respondents Nos.2 and No.

3. Date of hearing: 3rd October, 2003. Through this petition the petitioners have sought quashing of F.I.R. No.437 registered at Police Station Dijkot, District Faisalabad on 22‑8‑2003 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.1 herein in respect of an alleged abduction of his daughter namely Mst. Saima Yousaf by petitioner No.2 and others.

2. The petitioners, respondent No. 1 and the alleged abductee namely Mst. Saima Yousaf are present before this Court in person today alongwith their learned counsel and the parties as well as their learned counsel have been heard by this Court at some length. Mst. Saima Yousaf has stated her age to be about twenty years and she has maintained that she is pubert, adult, major and hence, sui juris. She has informed the Court that she is a matriculate. She has categorically and vociferously maintained before this Court that she had never been abducted or enticed away by any person as alleged in the impugned F.I.R. and as a matter of fact she had left the house of respondent No. 1 on her own accord whereafter she had contracted marriage with petitioner No.2 on 20‑8‑2003 of her own free will and volition which fact is evidenced by a registered Nikahnama a copy whereof has been appended with this petition as Annexure‑B. At this stage the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has maintained that Mst. Saima Yousaf was previously married to one Mubashir Iqbal through a registered Nikahnama dated 5‑8‑2003 and, therefore, she could not contract marriage with petitioner, No.2 during the subsistence of her earlier marriage with Mubashir Iqbal. In this context it has been noticed by this Court that in the impugned F.I.R. no such earlier marriage of Mst. Saima Yousaf with any person had been referred to and the alleged Nikah of the said lady with Mubashir Iqbal on 5‑8‑2003 may, thus, be a subsequent contrivance. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the question as to which Nikahnama of the above mentioned lady is valid is a‑subject fit for a Family Court to adjudicate upon before the same is made a basis of criminal prosecution of the petitioners. What is relevant at this stage is that Mst. Saima Yousaf has categorically denied having ever got married to the above‑mentioned Mubashir Iqbal and she has maintained before this Court that the only husband she knows is petitioner No.2 and none else.

3. For what has been discussed above it has become quite clear to this Court that the impugned F.I.R. is based upon nothing but frustration and malice on the part of respondent No. 1 who has tried to convert and transform a matrimonial issue into a criminal case so as to bring the weight of criminal law to bear upon Mst. Saima Yousaf and her spouse in order to break their resolve as well as their matrimony. Allowing such an 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 same is allowed with no order as to costs and the impugned F.I.R. is hereby quashed. H.B.T./N‑11/L Petition allowed.