' ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.---Akhtar Ali petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 for quashing of the F.I.R. No,89 of 2012, dated 1-4-2012, registered under section 310-A, P.P.C., Police Station Kallurkot, District Bhakkar.
2. As per F.I.R. Lodged on 1-4-2012 at Police Station Kallurkot on the statement of Mst. Tahira Bibi it is alleged that her brother Ahsan Ullah had lawfully wedded Mst. Saima Bibi daughter of Alam Ali at her own accord and free-will without blessings of her parents; that being unhappy on the said marriage, brother of Mst. Saima Bibi and other influential persons including the petitioner armed with firearm weapons to take revenge had forcibly handed over the complainant in Wanni' to Rana Waqar Ahmed who has been committing zina bil jabr with her.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that complainant's plea of `Vanni' is false and an afterthought concocted story; that in fact she was lawfully wedded to Rana Waqar Ahmed vide Nikahnama dated 31-1-2011 in exchange of Mst. Saima Bibi wedded to her brother namely Ahsan Ullah; that offence under section 310-A, P.P.C. Is non-cognizable, therefore, registration of impugned F.I.R. By the police in terms of section 154, Cr.P.C. Is unlawful; that before registration of the impugned F.I.R. Complainant had lodged a suit for dissolution of marriage etc. Against Rana Waqar Ahmed without agitating the plea of Wanni' in the contents of the plaint; that no offence is made out against the petitioner for want of incriminating material, therefore, impugned F.I.R. Is liable to be quashed.
4. It is resisted by learned counsel for respondent No,3/complainant as well as learned AAG with the arguments that during the police investigation petitioner has been found guilty and accordingly placed in Column No,3 of the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Sent up to the court of competent jurisdiction for trial; that during the cross-examination upon complainant/respondent No,3 before the learned Judge Family Court it was categorically suggested that her hand was given to Rana Waqar Ahmed as badl-i-sulh' attracting the offence under section 310-A, P.P.C., which is cognizable by the police; that petitioner has not been able to make out any factual or legal infirmity to seek quashing of F.I.R. By invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have given patient hearing to learned counsel for the parties, learned AAG and gone through the record.
6. At the outset it is pertinent to mention that during the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much emphasis on his plea that offence under section 310-A, P.P.C. Is non- cognizable. I am afraid he is misconceived. Schedule-II attached with Criminal Procedure Code 1898 furnishing tabular statement of offences clearly describes that offence under section 310-A, P.P.C. Is cognizable. It is a non-bailable offence prescribed punishment whereof is rigorous imprisonment upto ten years, but shall not be less than three years. For ready reference section 310-A, P.P.C. Is reproduced hereunder:- "Whoever gives a female in marriage or otherwise in badl-i-sulh shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to ten years but shall not be less than three years."
7. There is no denying of the fact that in the proceedings of the family suit during cross- examination upon complainant/respondent No,3 it was suggested to her that she was given in tadl-i-sulh'. Simultaneously, it is also on the record that petitioner has been found guilty during police investigation and accordingly challaned in Column No,3 of the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Sent up to the court of competent jurisdiction for trial.
8. Needless to say that for quashing of F.I.R. Following grounds are ordinarily considered:--
(i) Jurisdictional error;
(ii) violation of any provision of law;
(iii) allegation failing to constitute an offence.
' In the instant case, however, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to make out any of the above noted grounds to substantiate his plea for quashing of F.I.R. Besides, it is pertinent to mention that Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has also taken up the matter in exercise of suo motu jurisdiction and having been informed that after completion of the investigation the challan has been submitted and trial Court seized of the matter is likely to proceed with the same in accordance with the law in the near future, has adjourned the matter further to a date in office vide order dated 17-5-2012.
9. In the case of Dr. Ghulam Mustafa v. The State and others (2008 SCM R 76), the Hon'ble apex Court has settled that the High Court has no jurisdiction to quash the F.I.R. While exercising Constitutional E power under Article 199 of the Constitution or under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., except in exceptional circumstances. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to make out any exceptional ground for quashing of the F.I.R., therefore, petitioner has no case to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
10. For the above discussion and reasons, I do not find any factual or legal infirmity in registration of the F.I.R. This, petition having no merit is dismissed.