' Through this writ petition the petitioner has sought quashment of F.I.R. No,62 of 2005 dated 24-1- 2005 registered under sections 10(2)/ 13/14, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 on the complaint of one Zafar Iqbal against Muhammad Shoaib, Muhammad Aslam, Azhar Nadeem, Muhammad Shahid, Naeem Akhtar, Mst. Shazia and Muhammad Shehzad at Police Station New Multan with the allegation that complainant was living in a rented house along with his family sitting room of which was in possession, of owner . Of house whose grand maternal-son namely Shoaib on 23-4-2004 at about 10-00 p.m. Along with his co-accused was seen while committing Zina with. Mst. Shazia/co-accused. When Mst. Shazia was asked about the occurrence she told that she was handed over to the accused persons by on Muhammad Shahzad against a consideration of Rs,1,000 and they were committing Zina-bil-Raza.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that bare perusal of the F.I.R. Shows that no offence is made out against the petitioner and other co-accused and registration of case is totally an act of without lawful authority. That sections 13/14 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance VII of 1979 are not applicable in this case as there is no evidence for sale of Mst. Shazia who is a married lady having children and complainant with connivance with local police registered a false case against the accused persons. That the occurrence took place at night time and is not supported by witnesses and the complainant has also no objection if this petition is accepted and F.I.R. Is quashed. Further submits that co-accused namely .Shahzad has been declared innocent and eye-witnesses have denied the occurrence.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant submitted that incomplete challan has been submitted on the basis of Zimni No,9 dated 10-3-2005 according to which Muhammad Shoaib Muhammad Aslam, Azhar Nadeem, Muhammad Shahid, Naeem Akhtar and Mst. Shazia have been found guilty and Shahzad accused tas been declared innocent.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. This is well-settled law that factual controversy cannot be taken into consideration through Constitutional petition.
According to the principle laid down in Naseem Beg v. M. Iqbal and others 1981 SCM R 315 High Court can quash proceedings if satisfied from cogent material that the prosecution was launched for improper motives merely to harass the accused or its continuance would be an abuse of the process and the Court conclude that it would not be in the ends of justice to allow the prosecution to continue. It has also been held in Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan and others PLD 1967 SC 317 that when the alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under B section 249-A or 265- K, Cr.P.C. Constitutional petition would not lie. No illegality or mala fide and jurisdictional error has been found in this case. Instant writ petition having without substance is dismissed.