1. ' This revision petition is directed against an order of acquittal made by the Revenue Assistant Magistrate 1st Class, M'abad, dated 12th June, 1979.
2. ' Muhammad Anwar complainant is brother of Ali Akbar deceased. It so happened that after the death of Ali Akbar who was a Government employee, his arrears of pay, pension and gratuity were obtained by Mst. Hassan Jan, respondent with the aid of Said Akbar respondent who was charged with keeping the women and having posed her as a widow of Ali Akbar deceased, whereas Ali Akbar never entered into marriage with Mst. Hassan Jan, respondent and was rather without a wife at the time of his death. Mst. Hassan Jan being wife of one Mir Zaman, could not have at all entered into legal marriage , with Ali Akbar during the lifetime of the former and thus, the complaint under sections 419/420 & 404, P. C. Was brought to the Court of Revenue Magistrate Ist Class, M'abad against the respondent The learned Counsel for the petitioner was heard. In support of the complaint, Muhammad Anwar complainant himself. Lai Khan, Muhammad Hussain Khan, Gul Hussain, Abdul Rehman and Gul Hussain son of Phaja were examined. It was stated that Mst.
3. Hassan Jan, respondent, being wife of one Mir Zaman, lived at his house till 1972 whereafter she ran away from his house and began to live with Said Akbar, respondent, as his wife. Ali Akbar was not married to Mst. Tilassan Jan respondent and so they say that whatever property was left by. Ali Akbar deceased, was received by her. It was not her entitlement. But they do not have any personal knowledge as to whether she was divorced by Mir Zaman and then married to Ali Akbar or not.
4. There is a judgment of the civil Court on the file which is merged in the judgment of the Supreme Court. This judgment was given in a civil suit by a civil Court in a case between the parties, namely, Muhammad Anwar, petitioner, brother of Ali Akbar deceased and Mst. Passan Jan respondent. In that case, it was declared by all the Civil Courts that Mst. Hassan Jan married to Ali Akbar who was his lawful husband. In view of this finding of the civil Court, it cannot be further enquired into in this case so as to determine whether Mst. Hassan Jan was lawfully married to Ali Akbar or not ? The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the finding of a Civil Court is not admissible in evidence. He has cited 1972 SCMR 584 to show that the finding of a civil Court is not admissible in a criminal proceeding. That may be so where the guilt of the accused in a criminal case is to be proved against him. But when a fact had already been determined between the parties in a civil Court. That cannot be re-agitated to be looked into by a criminal Court., Under sections 41 and 42 of the Evidence Act, the judgment produced by the respondent to prove that Mst. Hassan Jan respondent was legally married to Ali Akbar deceased, is a relevant fact for proof of which the judgment of a civil Court is admissible in evidence. The authority cited by the learned counsel for theinetitioner was given in different circumstances of a case. A woman was alleged to have been forcibly abducted and subjected to rape by some of the accused who were challenged for the commission of the offences of abduction by force and rape. It was afterwards that a civil suit was instituted by the woman abducted that her `Nikah' with one of the accused in that case was not legally valid and to that effect, a decree was also obtained by her which was brought on record to prove the guilt of the accused. Certainly, that judgment was not admissible in evidence against the accused as offences of abduction by force and rape were to be proved by production of evidence before the Criminal Court and, therefore, that authority is not relevant here in this case as already pointed out.
5. The learned trial Magistrate was quite right in admitting the judgment of the civil Court by which the fact of marriage of Ali Akbar with Mst. Hassan Jan respondent was concluded and in view of that judgment, the opponent who was very much there as a party, cannot be allowed to contest the point of marriage in a criminal proceedings so as to make a base on which some offence could be created by him. If it is allowed to create such a situation, then there will be no end to frivolous litigation and there will be a total disaster involved in the social structure of the human society.
6. ' That being so, there is no substance worth the name, to admit this revision petition for regular hearing. Therefore, it is hereby dismissed in limine.
(1) 1979 SCM R 109