' This is an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For the quashment of proceedings in a case under section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, against Muhammad Azam and three others, petitioners, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case against the petitioners was initiated on the report of Sub-Inspector Police, who was/is not competent to lodge the report under the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and, as such, the proceedings against the petitioners on the basis of the report lodged by the Sub-Inspector Police amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. The learned counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert him.
3. I have considered the matter carefully. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. Muhammad Inayat, Petitioner No,3 had lodged F.I.R. Under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, in which he stated that Ahmad Yar and 8 others had abducted his daughter Bashiran Bibi for committing Zina with her. After the registration of the case Mst. Razia, Muhammad Azam and Muhammad Iqbal, petitioners made statements before the police supporting the allegations levelled by Muhammad Inayat against the accused in the F.I.R.
The investigation revealed that the allegations levelled by the petitioners against Ahmad Yar and others were false. The case of abduction of Mst. Bashiran Bibi against Ahmad Yar and others was accordingly cancelled. Subsequently on the report of Muhammad Aslam, S.H.O. Case under section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered against the petitioners and challan was submitted in the Court of Session. It is thus very much clear that the proceedings against the petitioners under the aforesaid Ordinance have been initiated by the S.H.O. And not on the report made by the persons in respect of whom the Qazf was committed nor by any person authorized by them. Section 8 of the aforesaid Ordinance may be reproduced advantageously:-- "S.8. Who can file a complaint. --No proceedings under this Ordinance shall be initiated except on a report made to the police or a complaint lodged in a Court by the following, namely,--
(a) if the person in respect of whom the Qazf has been committed be alive, that person, or any person authorised by him, or
(b) if the person in respect of whom the Qazf has been committed be dead, any of the ascendants or decendants of that person. "
' The plain reading of the provision of law reproduced above will show that proceedings under sectin 7 of the Ordinance could not have been initiated on the report of the Police Officer.
4. Since in the present case, the persons in respect of whom Qazf was committed are alive. Neither they nor any person authorised by them in this behalf had made report to the police or a complaint in the Court, therefore the proceedings against the petitioners are illegal and amount to an abuse of the procees of the Court.
5. Pursuant to the above discussion this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is accepted and proceedings against the petitioners under section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, are quashed.