' M. BILAL KHAN, J.---Through this Constitutional petition the petitioner seeks quashing of F.I.R. No,26 of 1999 dated 14-1-1999 registered at Police Station Khushab, for offences under sections 10/11 A of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No,VII of 1979.
2. The allegation against petitioner No,2 is that he abducted Mst. Tasleem Bibi who was already married with Gul Baz Khan son of Muhammad Nawaz for the purpose of Zina.
3. The learned Law Officer has pointed out that on 10-3-2000 the complainant of the case namely Gul Muhammad son of Ali Muhammad had appeared before the learned Sessions Judge, Khushab and during the course of hearing of bail application titled Ghulam Farid v. The State, had stated that he had filed the case on account of some misunderstanding. The complainant was personally present before the learned Sessions Judge, and his original affidavit had been placed on the record. Likewise the learned Sessions Judge on the said occasion, had observed, that Nikahnama between Ghulam Farid and Mst. Tasleem Bibi dated 23-1-1991 was found to be genuine and further that the F.I.R. Had been registered on account of the fact that the parents of Mst. Tasleem Bibi had not approved her marrying on her own. Bail before arrest was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khushab on 10-3-2000.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for Gul Baz son of Muhammad Nawaz, the applicant, who had moved an application under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. (Criminal Miscellaneous No,261 of 2006) on the last date of hearing that on confirmation of his bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Khushab on 10-3-2000 Ghulam Farid petitioner had pronounced Talaq upon Mst. Tasleem Bibi and thereafter she had contracted marriage with Gul Baz on 13-6-2000. It is contended that after solemnization of her marriage with Gul Baz she had been abducted by Ghulam Farid, however, the learned counsel is not aware of the exact date of this incident for the reason that he has been engaged only this morning notwithstanding the fact that an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. (Criminal Miscellaneous No,261 of 2006) had been moved on 11-2-2006 by a different counsel.
5. It is contended that this Court has got no jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to adjudicate upon the matter when the same is already before the learned trial Court. He relies on Syed Muhammad Awais .Shibli v. The State 1995 M LD 567, Dr. Munawar Hussain v. Dr. Muhammad Khan, District Health Officer, Sargodha and 2 others 2004 SCM R 1462, Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others 2006 SCM R 276. A suit for activation of marriage filed by Mst. Tasleem Bibi is pending in the Court of Mr. Khalid Iqbal Khan, Civil Judge, Khushab where next date of hearing is 28-3-2006.
6. On the other hand Mst. Tasleem Bibi stated that she has contracted marriage with Ghulam Farid and that no Talaq had ever been pronounced by Ghulam Farid that the claim that she had contracted marriage with Gul Baz is absolutely absured and fantastic; that no case regarding the abduction of the petitioner had so far been registered at the instance of Gul Baz, although the alleged abduction had taken place somewhere in the year 2000; that Gul Muhammad complainant the paternal uncle of Mst. Tasleem Bibi had never appeared in the proceedings nor the father of the petitioner Noor Muhammad and that the present petitioner Gul Baz has moved this application only with a view to harassing, blackmailing and browbeating the petitioners.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the record. Marriage of Mst. Tasleem Bibi and (petitioners) is stated to have been performed with her free will, volition and consent. Insofar as the earlier alleged marriage of Mst. Tasleem Bibi with Gul Baz is concerned surprisingly it does not find mention in the F.I.R., however, at any rate the same is under close scrutiny before the Judge Family Court, Johar Abad, District Khushab, where proceedings are already taking place. The best forum to decide whether the alleged Nikah with Gul Baz was genuine oge fake, is the Family Court before which both the parties would be at liberty to lead evidence for and against the proposition and then after properly examining the issue, the said learned Judge shall pronounce the judgment. The parties can produce their evidence oral as well as documentary in order to prove their case. Following the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal PLD 1984 SC 1995 I am persuaded to stop the proceedings of F.I.R. No,26 of 1999, dated 144-1999 registered at Police Station Khushab for ..Offences under sections 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance No, VII of 1979 till the decision of the Family Court concerned or B in case any appeal is filed, till disposal of the same because the subject-matter of the dispute in the instant criminal case is similar to the civil suit under consideration of the Judge Family Court. However, the Judge Family Court shall decide the suit within six months on receipt of this order.
8. Ghulam Abbas , A.S- I . P.S. Khushab has been directed to extend fully protection of law to the petitioners and also convey this message to the S.H.O. Concerned.
9. There is no justification to quash the F.I.R. At this stage. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. There Will be no order as to costs.