JUDGMENT AHMAD SAEED AWAN, J.- The petitioner, Mst. Fatima Bibi aged 18 years and her mother Mst. Sardaran Bibi have filed this writ petition praying for the quash ment of FIR No. 367 dated 8.9.1994 under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, Police Station Lundianwala Tehsil Jaranwala District Faisalabad.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 1 was forcibly married to respondent No. 1 on 3.9.1993; as alleged his father virtually sold her for Rs. 15,000/- to respondent No. 1 who is almost about 45 years old and the petitioner is hardly 18 years. The petitioner No. 1 hardly lived for two months in the house of respondent No. 1 and returned to her parents as she has a hatred against respondent No. 1.
3. The father of petitioner No. 1 as alleged wanted to send her forcibly to respondent No. 1 whereupon petitioner No. 2 being mother resisted, hence the father turned both of them out of his house and other children to achieve his evil design by getting more money from respondent No. 1.
Respondent No. 1 got a case registered vide above mentioned FIR wherein false allegations have been made against petitioner No. 1 that she has been abducted for the sake of indulging in zina (Adultery).
4. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides at length. Previously FIR No. 200 dated 26.7.1993 was got registered by the father of petitioner No. 1 against the same persons mentioned in the recent FIR dated 8.9.1994 but the said FIR was discharged under section 173 Cr.P.C, on 30.7.1993.
Petitioner No. 1 has also filed a civil suit for dissolution of marriage which is pending in a competent Court at Jaranwala and further she had got recorded her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. As contended by petitioner No. 1 that she had left the house, of respondent No. 1 is corroborated by the discharge report under section 173 Cr.P.C. The quash ment of the above mentioned FIR has been sought on the ground that the case was registered after one year as counter-blast this time by respondent No. 1 while the previous was registered by the petitioner No. Is father Further petitioner No. 1 has filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against her husband and registration of case was based on mala i.e. Petitioner No. 1 is present in Court has categorically stated that neither she has been abducted nor she is being subjected to zina-bil-jabir. She herself left the house of her husband as she was-being subjected to torture and hatred has developed against him.
5. The contention of learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that the petitioner was not aggrieved party as envisaged under Article 199 of the Constitution and the writ petition not competent and the Court cannot interfere with the investigation of the case. He relied upon the well known case of Shahbaz Begum versus The Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan (PLD 1971 S.C.
677). This is true that this Court ordinarily refrain from interfering with the investigation in criminal cases but at the same time in appropriate cases intervenes in the larger interest of justice as laid down in cases Byram D. Awan and 3 others versus The State and 4 others (PLD 1989 Peshawar 145), Sakina Bibi and another versus The State (1986 P. Cr. LJ 1089) and Shahamand Ali and 5 others versus SHO P.S. Gogera Distt, Okara and State (NLR 1993 Crl. 38 Lahore) and like other cases, it has been held that functionaries sitting in Police Station do come within the purview of Article 199 of the Constitution and their actions are also in no case sacrosanct so as to be excluded from judicial scrutiny. As the petitioner's father and respondent No. 1 have appeared in this Court today jointly, which establishes the fact as narrated by the petitioner in the writ petition. The plea that the petitioners are not aggrieved persons is misconceived as petitioner No. 1 is directly involved in the alleged offence of Adultery levelled by respondent No. 1 in the said FIR.
6. She herself left the house of her husband as she was being subjected to torture by him and hatred has been developed against him. Further he himself has levelled serious allegation of adultery against her.
7. Respondent No. 1 apparently seems to be over 45 years and the petitioner No. 1 apparently seems to be an innocent girl of hardly 13/14 years of age and their marriage prima facie seems to be un-natural and no one on earth with parental love would give had of such innocent girl to respondent No. 1. The age factor of petitioner No. 1 gets support from FIR No. 200 lodged by the petitioner's father in which her age was shown as 9 years in 1993. Petitioner No. 1 is residing with her mother. I am of the view that the FIR has been lodged for mala i.e purposes and petitioner No. 1 has also filed a civil suit which is pending before a competent court. It is now well settled principle of law that particularly when a case is pending in a Family Court for adjudication the criminal proceedings are stayed till then. Relying upon the case of Muhammad Azam Versus Muhammad Iqbal (PLD 1984 S.C. 95), the investigation of FIR No. 367 dated 8.9.1994 Police Station Lundianwala Tehsil Jaranwala District Faisalabad shall remain suspended till such time the controversy is finally resolved by the learned Family Judge, Jaranwala who shall dispose of the same within four months. Copy of the judgment shall be forwarded by the learned Judge to the SHO, Police Station Lundianwala Tehsil Jaranwala, District Faisalabad who shall proceed there in accordance with law in the light of judgment of the Family Court accordingly. With this observation, this petition stands disposed of as no order to cost.