' The necessary facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the petitioner is an, accused person in case F.I.R. No, 212' registered at Police Station Alpa, Multan on 3-7-2000 for offences under sections 16/10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 which case had been lodged by respondent No, 2 in respect of an alleged enticement of and commission of Zina with respondent No, 2's daughter namely Mst. Shamim Mai. According to the F.I.R. The alleged entice/victim namely Mst. Shamim Mai was already married to one Muhammad Zafar on 29-8-1999 before her enticement by the present petitioner. As against that the petitioner has claimed that the above mentioned Mst. Shamim Mai had in fact contracted Nikah with the petitioner on 7-6-2000 and that she had never contracted marriage with the above mentioned Muhammad Zafar. After completion of investigation of the said ease a challan has already been submitted and the trial of the said case is presently pending before a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan. On 10-7-2001 the petitioner submitted an application before the learned trial Court for stay of proceedings before the learned trial Court so as to' await the, decision of the Family Court,' Multan before which the petitioner's suit for restitution of conjugal rights against Mst.
Shamim Mai and jactitation of marriage against the abovementioned Muhammad Zafar is pending. That application of the petitioner was dismissed by the, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan vide order dated 8-10-2001. Hence, the present revision petition before this Court.
2. The only ground urged before this Court in support of the present revision petition is that by virtue of the law declared by the Honourable Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal and others PLD 1984 SC 95 which was reiterated in the case of Shakir Muhammad and another v. The State PLD 1985 SC 357 a criminal Court is normally to stay its proceedings where a matter of disputed Nikah is sub judice before a Family Court.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the documents appended with this petition I have failed to find any force in the present revision petition. It has not been disputed before me that the alleged enticee/victim namely Mst. Shamim Mai is not supporting the petitioner's case before the learned criminal Court and, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, she has not filed any written statement in the petitioner's case before the learned Family Court as yet but so far she is not siding with the petitioner's party even before the. Family Court. It has also not been disputed before me that the present stand taken by the petitioner based upon the petitioner's claimed marriage with the said lady had never been taken before the Investigating Officer of the criminal case in question. In' this context it may be pertinent to mention that the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No,12508 of 2000 'before this Court maintaining therein that the Investigating Officer of the above mentioned criminal case was not recording the petitioner's version and the said writ petition had been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 5-12-2000 directing the Investigating Officer to record the version of the petitioner and to receive his documentary evidence on the record of investigation. It has, however, been conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the above-mentioned direction by this Court the petitioner's version had never been brought on the record of investigation and no petition regarding violation of the above mentioned order of this Court had been tiled before this Court.
This apparently shows that despite obtaining the - above mentioned order from this Court the petitioner had not bothered to approach the Investigating Officer to get his version recorded or to bring his documentary evidence on, the record of investigation.
4. The principle laid down in the case of Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal and others PLD 1984 SC 95 is surely not of universal application. In the case of Shakir Muhammad and another v.
The State PLD 1984 SC 353 it had been observed by the Hon'ble Shariat Appellate Bench of Supreme Court of Pakistan that, "It is not every plea regarding the Nikah that would attract the rule relied upon by the learned counsel. It has been clarified in the said judgment more than once that if the plea prima facie appears =to be frivolous, vexatious, mala fide etc, then the rule shall not be attracted".
' It was again observed by the Honourable Shariat Appellant Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Sheikh Nazir Ahmad v. Riasat PLD 1986 SC 132 that {{URDU TEXT}}
5. As already mentioned above the plea of Nikah being advanced by the petitioner had not been taken before the Investigating Officer and the lady in question is also apparently not supporting the said plea of the present petitioner. In these circumstances the filing of the above mentioned suit by the petitioner before the learned Family Court, Multan has not appeared to this Court to be such a convincing or compelling circumstance so as to order stay of proceedings before the learned criminal Court trying, the petitioner's case. This revision petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
6. Before parting with this order , it may, however, be clarified that any observation made in the present order shall not prejudice either the learned criminal Court or the learned Family Court seized of the abovementioned matters.
7. The Office is directed to send a copy of this order to Mr. Bahadar Ali Khan, Additional Sessions Judge, Multan for his information. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.