' Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution Of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; 1973, the petitioner Mst. Taslim Mai seeks quashment of case F.I.R. No,141, dated 15-5-2005 registered under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station Khan Garh District Muzaffargarh.
2. The brief allegation in the F.I.R. Is that Manzoor Hussain who is maternal-cousin of the complainant used to visit his house and also developed illicit relations with his wife Mst. Taslim Mai petitioner. He was restrained from visiting the house. On 26-4-2005 the complainant had gone to Muzaffargarh and when he returned in the evening his wife was not present. Thereafter witnesses told that she was seen in the company of Manzoor and other accused persons who had taken her in the white coloured car from near the complainant's house at noon time. Manzoor Hussain was approached by the complainant for the return of Mst. Taslim Mai, who admitted her abduction but then refused to hand over Mst. Taslim Mai to the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Mst. Taslim Mai even today is about 24 years of age while the complainant was already a married man having five children from the first wife and the petitioner also filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on various grounds on 4-5-2005 in which notice was issued to the complainant but on receipt of the notice he has got registered this false case to put pressure on the petitioner for reunion; that nobody had abducted her and she does not want to go with the complainant or her mother as according to the petitioner her mother had earlier illicit relations with the complainant and she had got married the petitioner with the complainant just at the age of 14 years as a reward; that she having developed hatred against the complainant due to his behaviour has left his house on her own accord and now she is residing with the wife of Manzoor Hussain who is their close relative. The wife of Manzoor Hussain is also present in the Court who supports the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand opposes this petition on the ground that the petitioner has not joined the investigation so far, who was enticed away by the co-accused and she is living with a stranger which proves that the contents of the F.I.R. Are correct.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. It is not denied on behalf of the complainant that the petitioner has already filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on various grounds against him before the learned Judge, Family Court at Multan on 4-5-2005 wherein notice was issued to the complainant and the instant case has been got registered by the complainant afterwards on 15-5-2005 alleging that Manzoor Hussain had enticed her away. The petitioner is present in the Court who claims that her mother had illicit relations with the complainant and she was got married with him just at the age of 14 years as a reward who was already a married man having five children out of the first wife. According to the petitioner she has developed hatred against the complainant and she does not want to join him.
6. Admittedly there is no direct evidence so far collected by the police, if the petitioner was ever seen while committing Zina with the co-accused. For the time being there is only evidence of enticement of the petitioner which she has categorically denied and she has already filed a A suit for dissolution of marriage against the complainant. It is settled principle of law that a woman cannot be accused of her own abduction/ enticement/elopement. The petitioner claims to be living in the house of Manzoor Hussain , their close relative along with his wife. The latter while present in the Court has supported the version of the petitioner and denied any illicit intimacy between the petitioner and Manzoor Hussain her husband. Since she has filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against the complainant while living in their house the possibility of registration of the present case afterwards while concocting a false story cannot be B ruled out. If the petitioner does not want to live with the complainant as wife, who is admittedly sui juris being mother of two children she cannot be forced to live with the complainant as his wife against her wishes by use of criminal process of law. Since the petitioner, the alleged abductee has denied the allegation of her abduction and does not support the contents of the F.I.R., no offence is prima facie made out. In such circumstances the continuation of further proceedings with the impugned F.I.R. Will be abuse of process of law, which camiot be allowed to continue to use as a. Lever for putting pressure on the petitioner for reunion with the complainant. Hence this writ petition is accepted and the impugned F.I.R. Is quashed.
F.I.R. Quashed.