2018 P Cr (PLP)
MEHBOOB AHMED — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2018 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar (D.I. Khan Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MEHBOOB AHMED — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar (D.I. Khan Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 P Cr (PLP) (MEHBOOB AHMED — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shah Shajaullah Khan and Rehmatullah Khan Kundi for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Yousaf Khan and Muhammad Shah Behram Awan for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 506
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Elimination of Custom of Ghag Act (II of 2013), S. 4
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Quashing of FIR
Petitioner was aggrieved of FIR lodged by his wife and sought quashing of the same on grounds that it was false and frivolous
High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction could not decide guilt or innocence of accused
Contentions raised by both the parties were factual in nature and far reaching to a correct conclusion, proper investigation, inquiry and pro and contra evidence was required to be recorded in a court of competent jurisdiction
Such exercise could not be done in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. [Paras. 7 & 8 of the judgment]
Judgment & Decree
SHAKEEL AHMAD, J.
By means of this Constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner seeks quashment of FIR No.597 dated 03.11.2017, registered under section 506, P.P.C. read with section 4 of Gahag Act, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa at Police Station S.MA, District Tank.
2. The prosecution case, as set-forth in the crime report, are that on 03.11.2017, the complainant namely Sumera Gul, lodged a written report at the police station against the petitioner, stating therein that she is an educated lady, the petitioner is an influential political person and he is her co-villager, causing harassment to the complainant and teasing her on different pretext, issuing threats through his cell phone and openly states that he will forcibly marry her and will not allow her to marry anywhere else, she has got no relation with him. The report of the complainant was incorporated into FIR on 13.11.2017, hence this petition.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and she entered into marriage with him on 17.3.2017 of her own free will. In this respect he placed reliance on Nikah Nama appended with the writ petition as Annexure-B at page 7 and photographs. He next contended that the petitioner has already filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent Sumera Gul; that on the face of it, the FIR is false and frivolous, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the complainant and the learned Additional A.-G. representing the State, jointly argued that the marginal witness of Nikah Nama, namely Inayat ur Rehman and the Nikah Khwan, namely Khan Muhammad appeared before the Illaqa Judicial Magistrate-II, Tank on 19.01.2018, and got recorded their statements under section 164, Cr.P.C. The said Inayat ur Rehman stated in his statement that he is neither witness of the Nikah nor the Nikah Nama carries his signatures. He also read out the statement of Nikah Khwan wherein he stated that he has not recited the Nikah between the petitioner and Mst. Sumera Gul, and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner claimed that respondent Sumera Gul is his legally wedded wife. On the other hand, she denied to be his legally wedded wife. The marginal witness of the Nikah Nama, namely Inayat ur Rehman appeared before the Judicial Magistrate and got his statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., stating therein that though his name is mentioned as witness of the Nikah, but neither Nikah was recited before him, nor the Nikah Nama carries his signature/thumb impression. The said Nikah Nama is forged and fictitious. Similar is the position of Nikah Khwan. He also got recorded his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C., before the Illaqa Judicial Magistrate and stated that he has not recited the Nikah between the petitioner and Mst. Sumera Gul.
7. We, in our constitutional jurisdiction, cannot decide the guilt or innocence of the petitioner. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties, are factual in nature and for reaching to a correct conclusion, proper investigation, inquiry and pro and contra evidence is required to be recorded in the Court of competent jurisdiction, which cannot be done in constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. In this respect, we are fortified by the judgment of the Honourable apex Court, reported as Bashir v. Zafer-ul-Islam (PLD 2004 SC 298) and Dr. Sher Afghan Khan Niazi v. Ali Habib and others (2011 SCMR 1813).
8. For what has been discussed above, the petition in hand, being bereft of merit, is hereby dismissed in limine. MH/162/P Petition dismissed.