' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Through this petition the petitioner has sought quashing of F.I.R.
No,436 registered at Police Station, Sadar, Daska, District Sialkot on 26-12-2005 in respect of an offence under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The said criminal case has been lodged by respondent No,2 herein in respect of an alleged abduction of his daughter namely Mst. Nadia Parveen alias Mst. Nazia Parveen by the petitioner, respondents Nos.3 to 6 and another.
2. The petitioner as well as respondents Nos.3 to 5 are in attendance before this Court today and the alleged abductee namely Mst. Nadia Parveen alias Mst. Nazia Parveen is also present before this Court in person (identified by the learned counsel for the petitioner). On the last date of hearing this Court had directed the complainant as well as the Investigating Officer of this case to appear before this Court in person today and the said order had been communicated to them not only by the office of this Court but also by the office of the learned Advocate-General, Punjab, on telephone but unfortunately they have not bothered to enter appearance. This shows that they do not want to resist this petition as they have nothing available with them to oppose the same. The alleged abductee has stated her age to be about twenty years and has, thus, claimed to be puberty, major, adult, and sui juris for all intents and purposes. She has categorically and emphatically maintained before this Court that she has not been abducted or enticed away by anybody as alleged in the impugned F.I.R. And that she had left the house of respondent No,2 on her own whereafter she has contracted marriage with the present petitioner on 31-12-2005 of her own free will and volition which fact is evidenced by a registered Nikah Nama a copy whereof has been appended with this petition as Annexure-A. The alleged abductee happens to be the star prosecution witness in this case and if she does not support the prosecution's case then there is little likelihood of the petitioner and his co-accused being convicted for the alleged offence at the end of the day. It appears that by lodging the impugned F.I.R. Respondent No,2 has tried to convert a matrimonial issue into a criminal case so as to bring the weight of criminal law to bear upon the spouses so as to break their resolve as well as their matrimony. In these circumstances registration of the impugned F.I.R. Has appeared to me to be nothing but an abuse of the process of law which cannot be allowed by this Court to be perpetuated. This petition is, therefore, allowed with no order as to costs and the impugned F.I.R. Is hereby quashed.