' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition the petitioners have assailed the order of the learned Sessions Judge Mandi Bahauddin whereby in a petition filed by the mother of petitioner No,1 namely Mst. Sakina Bibi (respondent No,2 in the instant petition) for recovery and production of the said petitioner allegedly detained by petitioner No,2 illegally warrants for recovery of Mst. Sumaira petitioner No,1 were issued by the learned Court with a direction to the SHO to produce her before the Court.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that under section 491 (1-A), Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to issue warrants for recovery of petitioner No,1 who having contracted marriage with petitioner No,2 was happily residing with him at Faisalabad which even otherwise, was outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court; that after the petitioners had contracted marriage on 6-5-2006, a false and frivolous case vide F.I.R. No,180', dated 25-5-2006 was lodged against petitioner No,2 and others for the alleged abduction of petitioner No,1 which during investigation was found to be false and recommended for cancellation, which fact was concealed by respondent No,2 in the application filed before the learned Sessions Judge for the recovery of petitioner No,1; that on 21-6-2006 petitioner No,1 got her statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. Before a learned Magistrate in which she stated that she had contracted marriage with petitioner No,2 with her own free will and consent being sui juris and that she had not been abducted or detained against her wishes by anyone; that during investigation of the afore- mentioned F.I.R. Petitioner No,1 got her statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Before the Investigating Officer in which she reiterated the stand taken by her before the learned Magistrate.
Thus, the entire proceedings conducted by the learned Sessions Judge on the petition filed by respondent No,2 were misconceived is a nullity in the eye of law.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,2 contended that petitioner No,1 was 14-1/2 years of age, hence legally not competent to enter into marriage with petitioner No,2.
4. The Deputy Prosecutor-General submitted that case lodged against petitioner No,2 and others for abduction of petitioner No,1 was recommended for cancellation by the police on 1-8-2006 and that in her statement before the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. As well as under section 164, Cr.P.C.
Before the learned Magistrate petitioner No,1 had admitted having contracted marriage with petitioner No,2 being sui juris and had refuted the allegation of her abduction.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Petitioner No,1 is present in Court who appears to have attained the age of puberty. On query she states that she is 19 years of age and has contracted marriage with petitioner No,2 of her own free will and accord on 6-5-2006. Further, states that she is 5 months pregnant. She had also denied her abduction by petitioner No,2 or being kept under any restraint or illegal confinement by him. On being asked as to why the petitioners did not appear before the learned Sessions Judge Mandi Bahauddin when being summoned by the learned Court, the petitioner stated that they had contracted marriage against the wishes of petitioner No,1 parents and had strong apprehensions that if they approached the learned Court they would be done to death by the relatives of petitioner No,1 who, according to them, where outside the Court even today. In any case the factum of marriage between the petitioner is not denied by the Investigating Officer which is further supported by the statement made by petitioner No,1 on oath under section 164 Cr.P.C before a learn Magistrate. The criminal case registered against petitioner No,2 and others for the abduction of petitioner No,1 after a thorough investigation, stands cancelled. It has been noticed that in the petition filed by respondent No,2 before the learned Sessions Judge the residential address of petitioner No,2 is conspicuously missing. The learned Court was apprised of the fact that the petitioners had contracted marriage and the petitioner No,1 had also got her statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. Before the learned Magistrate accepting her marriage with petitioner No,2 but despite that the learned Sessions Judge Mandi Bahauddin proceeded to issue warrants for her recovery with a specific direction to the SHO. Police Station Miana Gondal to receive the warrants from the Court for execution. The course adopted by the learned Sessions Judge Mandi Bahauddin was not warranted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
7. Consequently, this petition is accepted and the proceedings emanating from the petition filed by Mst. Sakina Bibi respondent No,2 titled "Sakina Bibi v. SHO, etc." pending before the learned Sessions Judge Mandi Bahauddin are quashed and the order dated 30-10-2006 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.