1989 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10 & 16(2)‑‑Abuse of process of Court‑‑Quashing of proceedings pending in Court‑‑Alleged abductee, legally‑wedded wife of accused and admitting her Nikah with accused‑‑Decree of jactitation set aside by competent Court‑‑Case lodged after 8 months of alleged abduction and 25 days of acquittal of accused from abduction case‑‑Proceedings being abuse of process of Court were ordered to be quashed in circumstances. Muhammad Akbar for Petitioners. Ch. Abdul Nabi for the State. Through this petition under section 561, Cr.P.C. Abdul Razaq, Ashiq Muhammad, Sadiq Muhammad and Mst. Shamim Akhtar petitioners want this Court to quash the proceedings against them under sections 10, 16(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 in a case registered at Police Station Yazman, vide F.I.R. No. 140/86, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur.

2. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. No. 140/86 that Mst. Shamim Akhtar was the legally‑wedded wife of Jan Muhammad and she was abducted by Abdul Razaq and others on 22‑12‑1985. This case was registered on 4‑8‑1986. After investigation, the police submitted the challan against the petitioners under sections 10 and 16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present case against the petitioners is totally false inasmuch as Mst. Shamim Akhtar had contracted marriage with Abdul Razaq on 13‑11‑1980; that Abdul Razaq was acquitted of the charge of kidnapping Mst. Shamim Akhtar, that it was after about 25 days of his acquittal of the charge under section 363/148/149, P.P.C. that present case under sections 10 and 16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was lodged by the complainant against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the State has supported this petition. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition on the ground that since after the decision of the earlier case under section 363/148/149, the petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 again abducted Mst. Shamim Akhtar on 22‑12‑1985 therefore, the case was rightly registered against them; that the evidence in this case is yet to be recorded by the trial Court and that the acquittal of Abdul Razaq in the previous case does not bar his prosecution for offence committed by him subsequent to the date of his acquittal.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioners on the grounds that Mst. Shamim Akhtar seems to be the legally‑wedded wife of Abdul Razaq; that Mst. Shamim Akhtar is present in the Court and owns her Nikah with Abdul Razaq; that the decree passed in a suit for jactitation filed by A Mst. Shamim Akhtar against Abdul Razaq has already been set aside by the Court of competent jurisdiction and that the present case was lodged after about 8 months of the alleged occurrence and after 25 days of the acquittal of Abdul Razaq in the previous case.

4. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the proceedings against the petitioners amount to an abuse of the process of Court. That being the position, there is no option but to quash the proceedings in the case F.I.R. 140/86, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur. Order accordingly. SA./A‑586/L Proceedings quashed.