' Through this petition the petitioners have sought quashment of F.I.R. No,216 registered at Police Station Jhal. Chakian, District Sargodha on 6-7-2001 for an offence under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 337-H (2), P.P.C. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the present petition is that both the petitioners are major and sui juris and that they have contracted marriage\ with each other of their own-free will and violation and that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. Are concoction incarnate. As against that the learned counsel for the complainant has maintained that petitioner No,1 was already married to another person and, therefore, her claimed Nikah with petitioner No,2 per se amounts to commission of Zina which is Culpable.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been felt by this Court that the question whether petitioner No,1 had in fact been abducted/enticed away by petitioner No,2 or not as also the .Question whether petitioner No,1 was already married to somebody else as alleged in the F.I.R. Or not and also the question whether the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. Regarding the occurrence in question are correct or not are all questions requiring holding of a factual inquiry which exercise cannot be undertaken by this Court in the present summary proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution. It is a statutory duty of the police to investigate a crime reported to it and this Court would not like to scuttle or stifle the said duty of the police at such premature stage. Even otherwise the petitioners have many remedies available to their and in view of availability of those statutory remedies the present petition before this Court is not maintainable. A reference in this regard may be made to the cases of Haji Muhammad Sadiq v Ilaqa Magistrate of Police Station Factory Area, Faisalabad and others (2001 PCr.L1 1571); Farrukh Salim v The State (PLD 1997 Lahore 385), (D.B)., and Qaiser Mehmood v Muhammad Shafi and another (PLD 1998 Lahore 72). In these circumstances no occasion has been found by this Court for interference in the matter at such a stage.
3. It, however, goes without saying that the Investigating Officer is bound to record the versions of the petitioners, to receive their oral and documentary evidence on the record of investigation and then to conduct the investigation justly, fairly and strictly in accordance with law while keeping both the versions before him. It is, therefore, expected that if the petitioners approach the Investigating Officer of this case in that regard then he shall do the needful purely on merits.
4. With the observations made above this petition is hereby dismissed.