' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.--- Through this petition the petitioner has sought quashment of case F.I.R. No,36 of 2005 dated 19-1-2005 under section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station Jampur District Rajanpur.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioners as per prosecution story is that about one year before the registration of case petitioner No,1 Mst. Kalsoom Bibi was abducted by Jumma Khan Petitioner No,2 along with other co-accused. When the complainant-respondent No,4-father of the alleged abductee Mst. Kalsoom Bibi found her missing he started search and P.Ws. Told him that Jumma Khan petitioner No,2 had abducted her daughter along with other co-accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that registration of case against the petitioners and other co-accused after one year of alleged abduction of petitioner No,1 is illegal as Mst. Kalsoom Bibi petitioner No,1 out of her own free will and consent being sui juris had contracted marriage with petitioner No,2 Jumma Khan and they are living happily as husband and wife and have suckling baby. Further submits that in the circumstances nobody can be permitted to interfere in the matrimonial relationship of the petitioners.
4. On the other hand learned A.A.-G. Has vehemently opposed the stance taken by the petitioner and submits under instructions challan has been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of trial and as the alternate remedy is available to the petitioners this constitutional petition is not competent.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and minutely perused the record. So far as delay in registration of case is concerned, delay in such-like cases is of no consequence as honour of family is involved, therefore, people do not rush to police but try to exhaust all other sources before approaching the police. Reliance is placed on 1997 M LD 1234. Now the investigation is complete and challan has been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of trial where the petitioners may seek alternate remedy and as it has been held in Naseem Baig v. M.
Iqbal and others 1991 SCM R 315 that High Court can quash the proceedings if satisfied from the cogent material that prosecution was launched for improper motive to harass the accused or its continuance would be an abuse of process of law. It has been held in PLD 1967 SC 461 that remedy is not to be used to divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure. It has been held in Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammil Khan and 4 others PLD 1967 SC 317 that remedy Or quashment of proceedings is not available when alternate remedy is available in the shape of sections 265-K and 249-A, Cr.P.C. Honourable Supreme Court has observed that quashment proceedings at early stage is neither permissible nor preferred and every criminal case should be allowed to proceed on its merits. Reliance is placed on Akbar Hussain v. M.M.K.A. Zai 1968 SCM R 386; Nasir Ali v. Munshi Mehr Khan PLD 1981 SC 607 and Raja Haq Nawaz v. Muhammad Afzal and 4 others 1971 SCM R 698.
6. For what has been discussed above the instant petition having no force is dismissed.