M. TABASSUM AFTAB ALVI, C.J.---The captioned petition has been moved for quashment of the impugned FIR No.48/2017, dated 30.06.2017, registered against applicants at Police Station, Charhoi, upon the application of Muhammad Hanif, complainant, in offences under sections 10, 11 16 and 19 ZHA and 14,EHA. It is averred in the application that on basis of fictitious and concocted 'Nikahnama' dated 10.05 2017, the aforesaid FIR was registered against applicants. It is further claimed that applicant No.1, is an adult lady and she with her free-will contracted 'Nikah' with Asad Mahmood, applicant No.2; therefore, craved that by accepting the instant application, the aforesaid FIR may be quashed.
2. The application was resisted by complainant-respondent No.4, through objections wherein, it is stated that applicant No.1, was married to one Hamza Hanif, on 10.05.2017, whereas the contracted second marriage with applicant No.2, on 30.06.2017, which is null and void in the eye of law; hence, prayed that by accepting objections, quashment application may be dismissed.
3. Raja Sajjad Ahmad Khan, the learned Counsel for applicants, submitted with vehemence that applicant No.1, being a sui-juris lady contracted 'Nikah' with applicant No.2, as per her free consent, on 30.06.2017; however, complainant, who is uncle of applicant No.1, prepared a fictitious 'Nikahnama' dated 10.05.2017 and got registered a frivolous case against applicants. He pointed out that applicant No.1, Mst. Rafia Razzaq, challenged the aforesaid 'Nikahnama' dated 10.05.2017, before Judge Family Court, Muzaffarabad, whereby, the same was declared null and void through judgment and decree dated 28.12.2017, and against the aforesaid judgment no appeal was filed; hence, the same attained finality under law. In support of his version, the learned Counsel produced an attested copy of the judgment of Court below dated 28.12.2017, and craved for quashment of the impugned FIR.
4. Conversely, Sardar Javaid Naz, the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of respondents Nos.1 to 3, submitted that as two 'Nikahnamas' are under dispute; therefore, matter ought to be investigated. He further submitted that application is premature; therefore, the same may be dismissed.
5. I have given my due consideration to the arguments addressed at Bar and gone through the record with utmost care.
6. The matter in hand pertains quashment of FIR No.48/2017, dated 30.06.2077, registered against applicants at Police Station, Charhoi, upon the application of Muhammad Hanif, complainant, in offences under sections 10, 11, 16 & 19, ZHA and 14, EHA.
7. At the very outset, it would be pertinent to observe here that under provisions of section 561-A, Cr.P.C, 1898, this Court has inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. These powers are very wide and can be exercised by the High Court at any time. In exceptional cases this Court can exercise its powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C, without waiting for trial Court to pass orders under section 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C, 1898, if the facts of the case so warrant to secure the ends of justice. The words "or otherwise to secure the ends of justice" clearly empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers available under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. at any stage to do complete justice. Even otherwise, it is well settled principle of law in such like cases that if free hand to the police to play havoc with the life, honour and liberty of citizens and to use it as a lever, to commit atrocities on innocent citizens under the garb of investigation, is allowed to apply, then jurisdiction of the High Court would become redundant and citizens would be left at the mercy of police. The aforesaid view is fortified from a case reported as Mst.. Kaneez Fatima and others v.
The State and others 1995 PCr.LJ 1672.
8. It would not be out of place to observe here that ordinarily this .Court does not interfere in the investigation of a criminal case; however, if the court comes to a conclusion that accused is innocent and his/her conviction is impossible, then this Court is duty bound quash the criminal proceedings. The aforesaid view stands fortified from a case reported as Allah Ditta and 3 others v.
The State [1995 PCr.LJ (Lahore) 1668], wherein, it is opined as under:-- "The contention of the learned Counsel indeed carries weight as ordinarily the High Court does not interfere in the investigation of a criminal case to obstruct or divert the ordinarily course of criminal procedure if it comes to the view that a prima facie case is disclosed but where the Court comes to a clear conclusion without any manner of doubt that the accused persons are innocent and for that in any view of the matter their conviction is quite impossible it is duty bound to quash the criminal proceedings in accordance with law."
9. Applicant No.1, Mst. Rafia, Razzaq, personally appeared in this Court, on 08.11.2017, and deposed at Bar that she being sui-juris contracted marriage as per her free-will, to Asad Mahmood, applicant No.2. She affirmed ingredients of 'Nikahnama' dated 30.06.2017 and categorically admitted her 'Nikah' as valid. Moreover, suit filed by Mst. Rafia Razzaq, against Hamza Hanif and others, before Judge Family Court, Muzaffarabad, for jactitation of 'Nikah' dated 10.05.2017, was also decided in her favour, vide judgment and decree dated 28.12.2017, against which no appeal was filed; hence, the same attained finality under law. Therefore, in such like situation when applicant No.1, has admitted her 'Nikah' with applicant No.2, and other disputed 'Nikah' has been declared null and void by Family Court, it has become crystal clear that allegations leveled in FIR are baseless. The statement of a woman, in such like cases, is of vital importance to decide the controversy between the parties. Moreover, according to the injunctions of Islam, the consent of adult sane couple is sufficient for 'Nikah'. The applicants Nos.1 and 2 being sui-juris have lawfully married to each other and in these circumstances the alleged offences in FIR are not made out and continuance of proceedings under the circumstances against the spouses may amount to unnecessary harassm ent. My aforesaid view finds support from an unreported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir titled Syed Azad Hussain Shah v. Syeda Saba Asghar and others (Civil P.L.A.No.86 of 2012) decided on 19.6.2012. The Apex Court in the identical given case has not granted leave to appeal against an order of the High Court dated 23.4.2012, through which FIR No.124 was quashed. In this regard, the relevant portion of the judgment supra is reproduced as under:-- "Moreover, the statement of Mst. Saba Asghar, respondent No.1, which is a most relevant evidence in this Court, have categorically stated that she entered into Nikah with the deceased on her own will and no one has abducted her. In the presence of the said statement, no further evidence is required in this Court. The marriage is a civil contract and every Muslim of sound mind, who has attained puberty, can enter into contract of marriage and it is void only when it is solemnized without his/her consent. According to principle of Muhammadan Law the presumption of valid marriage can be ascertained from the fact of acknowledgement by a man or woman as husband and wife."
10. It is well established principle of law that each and every case has its own peculiar facts and circumstances, hence, should be judged in light of its discussed above, applicant No.1, has categorically admitted her 'Nikah' with applicant No.2 therefore, their Nikah dated 30.06.2017, is declared valid and proceedings initiated against applicants through the impugned FIR are accordingly liable to be quashed.
11. The nutshell of above discussion is that by accepting the instant quashment application, the impugned FIR No.48 of 2017, dated 30.06.2017, registered at Police Station, Charhoi, District Kotli, against applicants, on the application of Muhammad Hanif, complainant, in offences under sections 10, 11, 16, 19, ZHA and 14, EHA, stands quashed.