1. The only contention raised in this Constitutional petition on behalf of the petitioners is that in the presence of Nikah between petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 on 20-1-1988 the question of a second Nikah by petitioner No.1 with respondent No.2 herein on 20-4-1988 simply does not arise and therefore, registration of a criminal case at the instance of respondent No.2 at Police Station Peoples Colony, Faisalabad under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
2. Ordinance, 1979 vide F.I.R. No.157 dated 17-4-1989, is mala fide as its sole purpose is to pressurise petitioner No.1 to do away with her marital tie with petitioner No.2 vide Nikahnama dated 20-1-1988.
3. It is however, not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the authenticity of the relationship between both the petitioners on the basis of Nikah Nama dated 20-1-1988 is under challenge in the case registered earlier against petitioner No.2 and others at the instance of her father namely, Muhammad Siddiq at Police Station Sadar Faisalabad under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and that she was recovered in the said case and permitted to accompany her father-complainant after her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C.
4. Was recorded before a Magistrate 1st Class, Faisalabad on the same day. A perusal of the available material also shows that the statements of petitioners' father and Muhammad Sharif, Sultan Ali, Ghulam Mustafa and Qari Abdul Khaliq, who were witnesses to the alleged Nikah between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had been recorded during the investigation of the instant case and that all of them support the case of the prosecution. In the presence of the pendency of proceedings against the accused in case F.I.R. No.121, dated 6-3-1988 and the collection of evidence by the prosecution in the instant case i.e. Case FR. No.157, dated 17-4-1989, the contentions on behalf of the petitioners that the F.I.R. Is the result of mala fides on the part of the prosecution are devoid of any merit. No other point was argued on behalf of the petitioners.
5. For what has been said above, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.