' The petitioners are nominated accused of case F.I.R. No 124/2013 dated 20.8.2013, under Sections 376, 380, 496-A, 365-B, PPC, registered at Police Station Haji Pur, District Rajanpur.
2. After the investigation, the cancellation of the FIR. Was recommended by the investigating agency, disagreed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. The petitioners moved an application under Section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Seeking their acquittal, dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 25.02.2015, being impugned before the Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Mse. Nasreen Bibi, the alleged abductee was the wedded wife of Abid, one of the petitioner and thus no offence was made out but the learned trial Court proceeded to dismiss the application moved under Section 265- K, Cr.P.C. In great haste without appreciating/considering the law on the point. It was submitted that the powers under Section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised at any stage of the trial and that there was no likelihood of the conviction of any of the petitioner under any offence.
4. Learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposed the petition with vehemence and submitted that the petitioners are specifically nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role, which finds support from the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C.; that the abductee, namely, Mst. Yasmeen was produced before the Court and she confirmed the contents of her statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C.; that the provision of Section 265- K, Cr.P.C. Are not meant to throttle the prosecution's case, that under the criminal jurisprudence both the parties should be provided opportunity to put and prove its case before the Court and that there was sufficient material available on record to link the petitioners with the titled occurrence, thus, the impugned order was unexceptional,
5. I have considered the points raised at the bar and have gone through the record.
6. It is settled principle of law that neither the prosecution nor the defence should be deprived of producing its evidence merely ti because according to the Court either the said evidence was not necessary/sufficient or not required by the Court for recording the verdict of acquittal. In this respect cases of "The State through Advocate-General, Sindh High Court of Karachi v. Raja Abdul Renman" (2005 SCM R 1544) and "Nazir Ahmad v. Muhammad ishaque and another" (1998 P.Cr.L.J 1563) may be referred to with 'advantage. In this case, the complainant reported the incident to police against the petitioner and assigned specific role. The prosecution witnesses got recorded their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. And Mst. Yasmin owned/confirmed her statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Implicating the petitioners with the titled occurrence. Under the criminal jurisprudence both the parties should be provided opportunity to put and prove its case before the Court and the provision of Section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Are not meant to bury the case of prosecution in its infancy even otherwise, there was no mention in the application moved under Section 265-K, Cr.P.C, by the petitioner that charge was groundless or there was no likelihood of the petitioner under any offence, the only ground to invoke the Section 265-K, Cr.P.C. The order of learned Additional Session Judge is neither illegal nor suffering from jurisdictional defect and calls for no interference by this Court.
7. For the reasons mentioned above, there is no merit in this revision petition which is hereby dismissed.