Petitioners Muhammad Ramzan and Mst. Rubina Bibi through the instant Constitutional petition have sought for quashing of the FIR No, 141 dated 8.3.2004 under Section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood), Ordinance No, VII of 1979 registered with Police Station Phool Nagar, District Kasur.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant petition are that the said case has been registered on the written application of Respondent No, 1 Muhammad Iqbal. He has alleged therein that on 19.2.2004 at about 7:00. p.m. Muhammad Ramzan, Muhammad Boota and Mst. Taj Bibi have abducted his sister Mst. Rubina Bibi for Zina. He when had demanded her restoration from them, they had extended him threats of dire consequences.
3. The quashing of the FIR has been sought on the ground that the Petitioner No, 2 Mst. Rubina Bibi is sui juris and she of her own accord on Ramzan and neither anybody had abducted her nor committed zinc with her; and that the story of the FIR is absolutely false and based upon mala tide of the Respondent No, 1 as he is annoyed over her marriage with the Petitioner No, 1.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties present. The copies of the documents annexed to the petition gone into.
5. Petitioner No, 2 Mst. Rubina Bibi on Court query has submitted that neither anybody has abducted her nor committed Zina with her and that she being sui juris of her own accord had married Petitioner No,
1. Muhammad Ramzan/accused and the allegation leveled by his brother Muhammad Iqbal Respondent No, 1 in the FIR is absolutely false.
6. The petitioners in support of their plea have relied upon the Nikah Nama dated 20.2.2004 between them.
7. The SHO concerned in his report and parawise comments to the petition has mentioned that the petitioners have joined the investigation with him and they have produced the above said Nikah nama before him.
8. The Petitioner No, 2 is the alleged abductee in the case. She has completely negated the story of the FIR. She has stated to have entered into valid Nikah with Petitioner No, 1 Muhammad Ramzan.
9. In these circumstances, the FIR seems to be based upon falsity and mala-fide of the Respondent No,
1. He statedly is annoyed over her marriage with Petitioner No, 1 Muhammad Ramzan.
10. In these circumstances, to allow the FIR to continue would amount to nothing but mere abuse of process of law and wastage of time of the parties.
11.The instant petition, therefore, is allowed and the FIR is quashed.