ORDER CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.---Respondent No.2 has furnished parawise comments and report to the petition.
2. Petitioner Ali Raza through the instant constitutional petition has prayed for quashing of F.I.R.
No.530 registered under section 496-A, P.P.C. With Police Station Sadder Chiniot, on 12-7-2010. It was on the written application of respondent No.3 Faisal Abbas.
3. He has alleged in the F.I.R. That he was married to Mst. Rukhsana Kasur daughter of Zafar Alamad, on 22-7-2009 and thereafter, she had been performing her marital obligations by living in his house. He had strained relations 'with Qaisar and Ali Raza etc. Since long. Qaisar is a professional dacoit, who has recently been released from jail after remaining there for quite sometime. He (Qaisar) and his brother threatened him that as he was arrested on his secret information and hence, he will take revenge of the same. On account of grudge over the same, petitioner and Qaisar on the night between 24/25-6-2010, having fire arms entered into his house and caught his were Mst. Rukhsana Kasur. They pointed out their weapons towards them and threatened them to kill in case they raised alarm. They lifted Mst. Rukhsana Kasur and put her in a wagon standing out side his house. They took her away for Zina. Hence, the case.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Mst. Rukhsana Kausar being sui juris of her on accord has contracted marriage with respondent No.4 Qaisar Abbas, on A 30-6-2010 and respondent No.3 out of annoyance over the same has got registered the above mentioned case falsely in connivance with the police.
5. As against the same, the learned A.A.-G and the counsel for respondent No.3 have contended that Mst. Rukhsana Kausar is the legally wedded were of respondent No.3 and the petitioner and his co-accused have abducted her forcibly and they as yet have not produced her before the police and even respondent No.4 himself has not appeared before the police; and that in fact, the matter needs evidence and this cannot be done in a cursory way in such like petition.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and gone through the record.
7. I am afraid that the above question is a matter of deeper appreciation of the evidence, which is neither permissible nor desirable at such a stage. It requires putting the parties to evidence and without the same it cannot be determined. Such an exercise cannot be undertaken in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. It would be too much to do so here at such a stage in cursory way. So, no case for quashing of the F.I.R. Is made out.
8. The petition, therefore, is without any substance and the same is dismissed.
C.Ms. Nos.1 and 3 of 2010 9. As the main petition has been dismissed by this Court today, therefore, these miscellaneous petitions have lost their relevance. Hence, the same are also dismissed as having gone infructuous.