The petitioner seeks quashment of FIR, No: 2/2005, dated 1.1.2005 registered under Sections 10/16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, VII of 197.9 read with Section 380 PPC at Police Station Sadar, District Muzaffai garh.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner was married to the late brother of the complainant. who developed illicit liaison with Allah Bachaya even during lifetime of her husband and on 16.12.2004 the witnesses told the complainant that they had seen Mst. Kausar alongwith her three minor children in the company, of Allah Bachaya, etc, in a car. On search some household articles, six tolas of gold ornaments and cash amounting to Rs, 35,000/- were also found missing.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is admittedly widow of Maqbool Hussain, who is at advance stage of pregnancy. It is also contended that the complainant wanted to contract marriage of the petitioner with Muhammad Hayat another brother of her deceased husband Maqbool in order to grab her property but on her refusal the complainant has got registered this false case and that they have also taken the possession of petitioner's house and grabbed, the property of the deceased while the children and the petitioner were turned out of the house in order to deprive them of their legal share in the property: It is further contended that false allegation of elopement has been levelled against the petitioner whereas she is residing with his brother-in-law, namely, Abdul Sattar. It is also contended that counter allegations have been levelled by the petitioner that the complainant party has grabbed the property of deceased and they are not giving the due share of the petitioner as well as the orphans. 'It is contended that the continuation, of proceeding with the impugned F.I.R. would be abuse of process of law and the same may be quashed. Also-contend that the respectable of the locality have sworn affidavits supporting the petitioner's version and that there is no evidence that she was indulged in the commission of zina with the co-accused.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant opposes this application on the ground that the petitioner was abducted by Allah Bachaya and she was sent to Darul Aman on wrong assertion that his father was residing at Karachi. Also contends that she is not residing with Abdul Sattar and the petitioner is in the custody of Allah Bachaya. According to the learned counsel false counter allegations have been levelled against the complainant party to conceal their offence, who are residing with each other without any just cause and reason, therefore, are guilty of the offences. Learned Additional Advocate General also opposes the quashment of F.I.R.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. The statement of the petitioner has been recorded by the police during investigation and some counter allegations have been levelled by the petitioner -against the complainant and his brother that they wanted to deprive them from the rights of valuable property of deceased Maqbool Hussain. She has also denied irk her statement before the investigating Officer that she had eloped with any body taking away- any household article from the house In the above circumstances, when the petitioner is denying her abduction by any body and there is no direct evidence of commission of zinc the offences under Sections 10/16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII, 1979 are not made oat. The petitioner and her children are consistently making statements that they were not abducted by anybody and they are living in the house of Abdul Sattar brother-in-law of petitioner after they were expelled out of the house by the complainant and other family members in order to grab their property. The possibility of registration of sale case -with main fide intention and ulterior motive in order to grab the property of a widow and the orphans by the relatives of late husband cannot be ruled out.
7. As far as offence under Section 380 PPC is concerned, on the one hand there is no direct evidence to substantiate the allegation of taking way the house hold articles from the house by the petitioner and on the other it is generally noticed that it is tendency in this region that in cases of abduction/enticement/elopement of a major woman the allegation of theft of certain house hold articles without there being any evidence is levelled to put pressure on the alleged abductee to support the prosecution version, otherwise she is challaned under the said offence as well.
8. In the above circumstances, when from the contents of the F.I.R., which have been denied by the petitioner (the alleged abducted) no offence is made out, the continuation of further proceedings with the impugned F.I.R. will be abuse of process of law which cannot be allowed to continue. Hence this writ petition is accepted and the impugned F.I.R. is quashed with no order as to costs.
9. At this stage the complainant and petitioner's father who are present in Court, on the query of the Court have raised no objection if the petitioner alongwith her children goes to her house and lives there. They undertake that the petitioner will not be teased or caused any undue harassment and she will be at liberty to use the assets of the deceased. They have also promised to look after the petitioner as a widow. of deceased alongwith her children in the same house and give due respect to them. The petitioner wants to join her father, which is allowed.