' Ghulam Nabi son of Kamal Din complainant filed a private complaint against Muhammad Nazir and 3 others in the Court of Jam Jan Muhammad, Magistrate 1st Class, Khanewal on 5-1-1973, complaining that his daughter Mst. Akhtar Parveen a minor aged 14 years had been kidnapped a month prior to the filing of the complaint from his house by the accused/ petitioners.
2. The learned Magistrate having recorded the preliminary evidence of the complainant and P.Ws.
Abdul Qayyum and Baqir Khan summoned the accused/petitioners under section 363/109, P.P.C.
Vide order, dated 5-1-1973 through bailable warrants. Against this order the accused/ petitioners have filed the instant quashment petition.
3. The accused/petitioners have not appeared despite P.C.A.D. Issued for today. I have gone through the record of the lower Court as well as the memo, of the petition and the documents appended therewith, with the assistance of the learned State counsel.
4. The case of Nazir petitioners is that Mst. Akhtar Parveen being sui juris, of her own free will had contracted marriage with him, on 25-7-1973 and the Nikah was registered according to the provisions of Family Laws Ordinance. A copy of the Nikahnama is also appended with the petition.
There is also a certified copy of application marked 'A' purported to have been moved by Mst.
Akhtar Parveen to Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, on 8-9-1969, wherein she stated that her father wanted to give her in marriage to an old man and, therefore, she has deserted the house of her father of her own free will. Besides this a copy of school leaving certificate is also attached with the petition showing that she was student of Matric in the year 1973 and her date of birth is 13-4-1949.
By working out this date, the age of the girl, on the alleged date of her abduction, would come to about 23 years. Besides this her application to Deputy Commissioner, dated back to the year 1969 i.e, four years prior to the date of abduction mentioned in the complaint. In these circumstances, in my view, there is no reliable evidence available on record, which if remained unrebutted would constitute an offence of kidnapping or could form basis for the conviction of the petitioners/accused. The proceedings in the private complaint, therefore, are held to be mala fide which amount to abuse of process of the Court. Consequently, I quash these proceedings.
' Proceedings quashed.