CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.- The petitioner is involved in a case F.I.R. No. 279/97 registered in Police Station, Sadiqabad, under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcetnem of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. The petitioner's counsel contended that respondent No. 2 Mst. Naseem aged 20 years solemnized marriage with the petitioner and Nikah was duly executed between them on 1-9-1997. The petitioner has also filed suit feu cancellation of fictitious and forged nikhh executed between Msr.
Naseem respondent No. 2 and Muhammad Yaqoob before the family Court, Sadiqabad on 12-9- 1997 which is pending adjudication. He stated that respondent No. 2 remained with him for three days and thereafter her father came and took her with him with the assurance that the marriage would have been solemnized in the presence of the people.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the leamed counsel for the petitioner. The facts reveal from the contents of the writ petition that marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 solemnized on 1-9-1997 and the petitioner has filed suit for cancellation of fictitious and forged nikah executed between respondent No. 2 and Muhammad Yaqoob before the Family Court, Sadiqabad on 12-9-1997 which is pending adjudication. The FIR was lodged on the statement of respondent No. 2 in the Police Station. The petitioner and his counsel concealed material facts from this Court. The petitioner filed Crl. Misc. No. 352 -H-97/BWP on 15-9-1997 which was fixed before this Court on 17-9-1997 by Raees Khushi Muhammad Parhar, Advocate who has filed present writ petition. The aforesaid Crl. Misc, petition was dismissed in limine on 17-9-1997. The leamed counsel did not mention this fact of Crl. Misc, in his writ petition. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner did not mention a single word about the present FIR in the said habeas petition. The contents of the FIR revealed that it was registered on 5-9-1997, therefore, it was in the knowledge of the petitioner at the the of filing the said habeas petition; The leamed counsel was confronted that you did not mention a word about the said 'habeas petition but the leamed counsel replied that this is different matter so he did not mention the same. These are the material facts which were mis-presented and concealed by the petitioner in his writ petition, therefore, petitioner does not deserve discretionary relief as is held in Principal, K.E.M.
College v. Ghulam Mustafa, etc. (1983 SCM R 196 and 1969 CMR 141. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has laid down the principle that it is the prerogative right of the Investigating Agency to investigate the case and this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the inttestigation and the FIR be quashed as i. e. Held by the Superior Courts in Emperor v. Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (AIR 1945 Privy Council 18) and Brig. (Retd) Imtiaz Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Interior Division.
Islamabad and 2 others (1994 SCM R 2142).
4. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition is dismissed in limine.