2006 PLP 839 (SCMR)

CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.

Brief facts out of which present petition arises are that respondent No.1 was involved in a case F.I.R. No.345 of 2003 registered at Police Station Gogera, District Okara on 19-7-2003 under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), lodged by the petitioner against respondent No.1 and his co-accused namely, Khan Shear son of Abdul Ghafoor, Tanveer son of Abdul Ghafoor and Yousif son of Inayat.

2. Respondent No.1 filed Constitutional Petition No.16244 of 2003 for the quashment of the aforesaid F.I.R. in the Lahore High Court. The learned High Court accepted the constitutional petition vide order, dated 12-12-2003. The petitioner being aggrieved filed Intra-Court Appeal No.4 of 2004 in the Lahore High Court which was also dismissed vide order, dated 6-1-2004. Hence, the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned High Court erred in law to quash the F.I.R. at initial stage merely on the statement of abductee which is not inconsonance with the law laid down by this Court in support of his contentions, he relied upon Muhammad Latif A.S.-I, Police Station Sadar, Sheikhupura v. Sharifan Bibi and another 1998 SCMR 666.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that concurrently Courts below quashed the F.I.R. on the ground that the alleged victim appeared before the learned trial Court with the baby in her lap and denied the allegations of her abduction. He further submits that impugned F.I.R. was quashed by the learned High Court vide order, dated 12-12-2003 to the extent of respondent No.1 as envisaged from para. No.4 of said impugned order. He further urges that all the co-accused of respondent No.1 had been acquitted by the trial Court vide order, dated 16-3-2004. The petitioner has not challenged the vires of the order of the trial Court dated 16-3-2004 before any higher forum. The petitioner is present in the Court along with his counsel. He was asked whether he had challenged the order dated 16-3-2004 before any higher forum till date, he replied in negative.

5. We have given our anxious consideration to the contention of ]earned counsel of the parties and perused the record ourselves. It is a settled principle of law that this Court has ample jurisdiction to look into the subsequent events at the time of deciding the cases as the law laid down by this Court in Mst. Amina Begum and others v. Mehar Ghulam Dastgir PLD 1978 SC 220 as the co-accused had already been acquitted A during the pendency of this petition, therefore, no useful purpose would come out by setting aside the impugned orders whereby F.I.R. in question was quashed in view of acquittal of his co-accused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Okara vide order, dated 16-3-2004.

6. In view of what has been discussed above, we are not inclined to interfere in the concurrent findings of the Courts below keeping in view the subsequent events mentioned above i.e. acquittal of co-accused of respondent No.1. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave refused. N.H.Q./K-3/SC?????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.