' Petitioners who are husband and wife seeks quashment of F.I.R. No, 10/97 registered against them under sections 420/469/471/466, P.P.C. Read with section 10(2) of Offence of Zina (Enforecment of Hudood) Ordinance, 979 at Police Station Sadar Chichawatni District Sahiwal. Respondent No,2 got he afore said case registered alleging that Hafiz Abdul Ghafoor, his brother vas married with Mst.
Shahida Nadeem on 29-6-1996 and she signed the Nikahnama alongwith the witnesses. As Hafiz Abdul Ghafoor was residing in Saudi Arabia, Abdul Rehman father of petitioner No,1 promised for her Rukhsati at his arrival in Pakistan. After few days father of petitioner No,1 started escaping from this marriage on the pretext that. On telephone Nikah is not in accordance with Sharia and asked the complainant for having a Fatwa in this behalf. According to his demand complainant got Fatwa from two Muftis who declared said Nikah to be legal and in spite of this father of Petitioner No, 1 olemnized her Nikah with petitioner No,2 in Chak No, 11/IIL on 2-4-1996. Accordingly abovementioned F I . R. Was registered against the accused. {{PAGE CUT IN BOOK}}
2. Learned counsel contends that a suit for jactitation of marriage has been filed by petitioner No,1 against Abdul Ghafoor in the Court of learned Judge family Court Chichawatni while a suit for, declaration with permanent ijunction has also been instituted by Abdul Ghafoor against her and the Ligation in the said Court is going on between the parties. Investigation of the case has been completed. 'Petitioner No,1 present in Court states that she has tarried with petitioner No,2 and her Nikah with him is correct. She was never tarried with brother of complainant. She has totally denied the assertion made the F.I.R. Against her father and her co accused (Petitioner No,2).
3. Learned State counsel states that investigation of the case is complete challan is likely to be submitted in the near future, therefore, it is noj` tpropriate stage to quash the F.I.R. Investigating Officer states that Nikah of titioner No,1 with Petitioner No,2 is prior in time. Petitioner No,1 made a atement before him that she is wife of petitioner No,2 and her father has gned the Nikahnama as witness to the marriage.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record petitioner No, 1 is sui juris aged about 18/20 years. She has stated that Nikah was performed with petitioner No,2 by her father. She was neither ducted nor has been subjected to Zina by anybody as alleged in the F.I.R. She star witness of the prosecution. Her statement cannot be easily ignored. Sheis owned her Nikah with' petitioner No,2. Petitioner No,2 also states that titioner No, 1 is his wife and they entered into marriage bond voluntarily tth the consent of their parents. The question whether she is wife of petitioner 3.2 or Haji Abdul Ghafoor shall be finally determined by the learned Judge Lmily Court after recording the evidence but at present in view of the fact that e is sui juris and states that she is wife of petitioner No,2, assertion made in {{PAGE CUT IN BOOK}} the F . I .R . Stands negated. Perusal of the record shows that petitioners wen married on 2-4-1996 vide Nikahnama placed on the record which is accepted b3 both of them to be correct. Plea of the complainant that petitioner No,1 wa given in marriage to Abdul Ghafoor on 29-6-1996 prima facie appears to b( false. There is nothing on the record that petitioner No,2. Divorced petitioner No,1 and thereafter', she contracted marriage with brother of complainant Nikahnama Annexure B manifests that Nikah of a petitioners was solemnized b3 Ghulam Qadir Nikahkhawan in presence of father of petitioner No,1 or 2-4-1996 and was duly registered in the concerned Union Council. Th( Nikahnama relied upon by other side is dated 29-6-1996, copy is placed or record as Annexure C. There is clearly over writing thereon and morevoer it is not accepted by petitioner No,
1. There is nothing on the record to connect the ( accused with the commission of the offence alleged in the F.I.R. If impugnec proceedings are allowed to ontinue, great miscarriage of justice will take place. For the above reasons, I declared the registration of the impugner F.I.R. As illegal, without lawful authority and quash the same. The succeeds and is allowed.
F.I.R. Quashes