MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The brief facts of the case are highlighted in the judgment/order dated 16.12.2016 passed by Justice of Peace Gilgit, whereby he was pleased to order registration of FIR against respondents Nos, 4 to 6 of Cr. Misc. 38/2016, which has been challenged by means of instant petition.
2. The precisely relevant facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that on 21.10.2016, one Naseemullah abducted the wife of one Nahid Iqbal son of Amir Ali, resident of Imit, Tehsil Punial, District Ghizer, who during the days of occurrence was living in Majini Mohallah Gilgit. The alleged abductee was taken to Rawalpindi, where her nikah was performed with the petitioner Naseemullah during subsistence of her earlier marriage with Nahid Iqbal. It is heart rendering to mention here that at the time of deserting the house of her husband namely Nahid Iqbal she left two minor kids aged about 21/2 years and 11 months in the house and locked the house from outside. She was recovered from the house of petitioner on 15.11.2016 after conducting raid.
3. The complainant/husband of the lady when approached SHO City Gilgit for registration of FIR, he declined to register the FIR and being aggrieved from the attitude of SHO, the complainant filed a petition under section 22-A before the. Justice of peace Gilgit, who after hearing the parties directed SHO Police Station Gilgit to register FIR against the petitioner vide order dated 16.12.2016.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Justice of the peace before ordering registration of FIR recorded the statements of the alleged abductee despite of her statement already recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under section 164, Cr.P.C., on 17.11.2016. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Justice of the peace has travelled far beyond his vested jurisdiction and the orders of learned Justice of the peace are liable to be set aside and the orders which formed the basis of FIR No, 120/2016 be quashed along with FIR, simultaneously as from bare reading of FIR no offence is made out under sections 365-A, 365-B and section 494, P.P.C.
5. On the other hand the learned Dy.A.G, opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the orders of the learned Justice of the peace are in accordance with law and do not merit interference by this Court under extra ordinary jurisdiction vested upon the Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
6. I have heard the parties at length and perused the whole record of the case with their able assistance.
7. It is admitted fact from the available record that Mst. Zalim Khunza left the house of her husband leaving behind two minor kids and was taken to down Country, where her nikah was performed with petitioner Naseemullah. The hard fact that the marriage between Zalim Khunza and Nahid Iqbal was subsisting, which is a cognizable offence. There are divergent statements of Mst. Zalim Khunza on record. Her first statement was recorded by a Judicial Magistrate on 17.11.2016 and in her second statement recorded by Justice of peace on 15.12.2016 and both these statements are at variance.
8. This Court while carrying out summary proceeding under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., cannot decide the factual controversies involved in such like complicated cases, which could only be resolved by the respective parties before the competent Courts of law after adducing pro and contra evidence.
Such an unwarranted act of the petitioner cannot be blessed on the grounds that there have been some technical defects in the orders passed by a competent Court of jurisdiction. It has already been held by this Court in a judgment reported in 2016 PCr.LJ 1918, that a little deviation from the procedure is permissible, provided the ambition of the Court was to achieve the ends of justice, provided that no prejudice was caused to either party. It is a case of immoral liaison, which is not permitted under injunction of Islam.
9. In view of above, I, see no infirmity in the orders of learned justice of peace Gilgit dated 16.12.2016 and the same is upheld.
10. Resultantly the petition filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., for quashment of FIR No, 120/2016 is dismissed.