' The petitioners have filed this application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For the quashment of proceedings pending against them under section 16 of the Zina Ordinance read with section 14 of Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance. The complaint was filed by Muhammad Sher in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood) East, Karachi on 4-5-1987 against the petitioner, who recorded the statement of complainant on 21-5-1987 and referred the case to Additional City Magistrate for enquiry and report, who recorded the statement of the witnesses and submitted the papers back to the learned Additional District Judge, who by an order, dated 21-3-1988 issued bailable warrants against the petitioners in the sum of Rs,20,000. The petitioners, being aggrieved with the order filed this quashment application.
2. I have heard Mr. Ali Murtaza for the petitioners. He has not argued this abashment application on the merits, but mainly he submitted that the Additional District Judge has wrongly issued the process as he was not competent to take direct cognizance of such cases. He has referred to cases reported in PLD 1982 FSC 95 and PLD 1980 Lah.
388.
' Mr. Masood Shaharyar, learned counsel appearing for the State, submitted that this application is nature and this is a mere irregularity, therefore, proceedings cannot be quashed.
3. Before discussing the merits of this case, there is one legal point involved in this case, which is that process has been issued against the petitioners. They did not appear before the learned Additional District Judge nor they have surrendered before this Court and at this stage the petitioners are fugitive in law, but in spite of that neither the applicants appeared nor an application has been filed for exemption from appearance though proceedings were stayed while this application of abashment was admitted on 25-5-1988. In case reported in PLD 1969 SC 89, it has been held that persons seeking relief should submit to the Court. Presently the petitioners are on record as absconders. It has been held that Attorney and counsel are warned for serious consequences of committing contempt of Court in filing the appeal on behalf of the petitioners, who are absconders and same view has been repeated in so many cases and I also referred to case of Muhammad Sharif and others v. The State reported in 1983 P Cr. L J 638. There is another legal point that a provisional jurisdiction vests with the Federal Shariat Court in Hudood Cases under Article 203-DD of Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 and there are number of authorities on this point.
' Without going into the merits of the case, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. This abashment application is dismissed.