The petitioner had filed a complaint against the respondents before the Presiding Officer Shariat Court, Sialkot for abduction of his wife Mst. Zubaida Begum for purposes of Zina, etc. The Court ordered inquiry under section 202, Cr. P. C. During inquiry Mst. Zubaida Begum, the alleged abductee, made the statement against the respondents that she was abducted by one of the respondents and taken to City Sialkot. She had also deposed that she was concealed in places within Sialkot District and Zina was also committed upon her. The other witnesses produced by the petitioner also corroborated her. On receipt of report after inquiry under section 202, Cr. P. C. The Court which had taken the cognizance issued summons to the respondents. The respondents after appearance raised objections that since the offence had taken place within the jurisdiction of District Sheikhupura, the Courts at Sialkot had no jurisdiction to try the case: The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 25th January, 1982, accepted the plea raised by the respondent and directed that the complaint be returned under section 201,. Cr. P. C. For presentation to the proper Court and ordered that the accused are being discharged for the time being. It was also observed that "their discharge however shall not be treated as an acquittal". The petitioner challenged the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, dated 25th January, 1982 through this revision petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to subsection (4) of section 181, Cr. P. C. Which reads as follows "(4) The offence of kidnapping or abduction may be enquired into or tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the person kidnapped or abducted was kidnapped or abducted or was conveyed or concealed or detained.
It is also contended that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are residents of District Sialkot and that most of the P. Ws. And the complainant belong to the same district.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the contentions and have argued that the abduction initially had taken place from the jurisdiction of District Sheikhupura and that in the complaint filed no details were given as to whether, the alleged abductee was ever concealed or kept within the jurisdiction of District Sialkot or Zina was committed upon her within the limits of District Sialkot. It is also contended that statement of Mst. Zubaida Begum is not dated. The learned counsel for the respondents also insisted that the arguments be also heard on merits but I do not consider it proper to go into the merits while deciding this petition.
4 The learned Assistant Advocate-General having gone through the provisions of subsection (4) of section 181, Cr. P. C. And having read the statement of Mst. Zubaida Begum, the alleged abductee and the other witnesses recorded in- inquiry under section 202, Cr. P. C. Has conceded that the trial could take place in, both the districts and as the complainant has made a choice of proceeding against the respondents in District Sialkot, the Courts at Sialkot have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
5. For the reasons enumerated above this petition is accepted. The competent Court shall receive the complaint, if filed by the petitioner, and proceed in accordance with law.