P L D 1997 Lahore 186 (PLP)
LUBNA and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary,
| Citation | P L D 1997 Lahore 186 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday, J |
| Parties | LUBNA and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1997 Lahore 186 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1997 Lahore 186 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1997 Lahore 186 (PLP) (LUBNA and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Abbas Ali for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 18th December, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 11‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.l99‑‑‑ Constitutional petition‑ Allegation of Zina‑‑‑Validity of marriage‑‑‑High Court not appropriate forum for determining validity of marriage under Art.199 of the Constitution Declaration about the validity or an existence of an alleged marriage cannot possibly be given by High Court in the exercise of its extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction. _‑S. 11‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition Competency‑‑‑Quashing of F.1.R.‑‑‑Existence of alternate adequate remedies‑‑ Non‑availing of such remedies‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Equitable relief in discretionary jurisdiction of High Court‑‑‑Entitlement of accused involved in run‑away marriage‑‑‑Accused claiming themselves to be legally wedded spouses has sought quashment of the F.I.R. registered against them under S. l i of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979‑‑‑Held, High Court in the exercise of its extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction could not possibly declare the alleged marriage of the accused either valid or in existence‑_. Numbers of adequate and alternate remedies (mentioned in the order) being available to the accused, Constitutional petition was not competent‑‑‑Accused being involved in the marriage generally known as a 'run‑away. marriage' were not entitled to any relief in equity in the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of High Court‑‑‑Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑ Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court‑‑‑'Run‑away' marriage not an appreciable act‑‑‑ Jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 being discretionary in nature persons involved in 'run‑away' marriages are not entitled to relief in equity in exercise of such jurisdiction. Hasnat Ahmad Khan, A.A.‑G. for the Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
The facts and the law being pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition have persuaded me to admit this petition to regular hearing and to dispose it of as a notice case so that the matter could be considered in some detail. Admit. Notice.
2. Mr. Hasnat Ahmad Khan, A.A.-G. present in Court accepts notice. Both the learned counsel have no objection to the disposal of this petition today, as a notice case.
3. Claiming to be the legally-wedded spouses of each other, the two petitioners seek quashment of an F.I.R. bearing No.557/1996 of Police Station Ferozewala of District Sheikhupura on the ground that they had committed no offence in the eyes of law by having married each other and further that in the circumstances, the F.I.R. in question should be declared to be of no legal effect.
4. In the exercise of this extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction; it is not possible for this Court to give declarations about the validity or the existence of an arranged marriage. In arty uric the petitioner have adequate remedies available to them; firstly, before the investigating officer; secondly, before the higher police officers who are also S.H.Os. by virtue of section 551 of the Cr.P.C.; thirdly, before the competent Magistrate who has powers under section 63 of the Cr.P.C. to discharge accused persons; fourthly, before the competent Magistrate who has the power to cancel cases under Rule 24.7 of the Police Rules; fifthly, before the competent Magistrate who gets seized of the matter under section 190 of the Cr.P.C. and finally before the learned trial Court at different stages of the proceedings before it. In view of such a large number of remedies available to the petitioners it could not be said that they were without an adequate and alternate remedy which renders this petition incompetent.,
5. There is yet another aspect of this case. Though the present proceedings, as has been mentioned above, are not the kind of proceedings where I would consider it appropriate to give a declaration about the existence or the legality of the alleged marriage, yet the fact remains that such a marriage which is generally known as a 'run-away marriage' in our society, is not an appreciable act and thus the ones involved in such an act are not the kind of persons who could be found entitled to a relief in equity or to a relief as a result of exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court.
6. In view of what has been noticed above, this petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./L-15/L Petition dismissed.