' This is a petition for quashment of F.I.R. No,339, dated' 21-12-2002 registered under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station Qutabpur, Multan.
2. As per allegation in the F.I.R. On 18-12-2002 when the complainant and his wife returned home after day's work, they found that their daughter was missing and on inquiry, they were told that one Mst. Saira daughter of Manzoor alongwith Nadeem and Sabir had taken away Mst. Afshan Perveen on a motorcycle rickshaw for the purpose of committing Zina.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner has contracted marriage with Muhammad Nadeem on 6-12-2002 according to the Injunctions of Islam. Nikahnama is duly registered hence no offence has been committed by the petitioner and her husband. Further submits that petitioner had filed Writ Petition No,21707 of 2002 against the S.H.O. Police Station Ferozewala seeking a direction not to cause harassment to the petitioner and her husband wherein she had categorically taken a stand that she being sui juris and had contracted marriage with Nadeem of her own accord and free-will; that according to a certificate issued from the Office of.
M.S. D.H.Q. Hospital No,1, Lahore, dated 3-1-2003, the age of the petitioner is about 17 years and also in a certificate issued by the panel of three specialists, the opinion is that as per her X-Ray report, she is about 17/18 years of age.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for State has opposed this petition and submitted that petitioner is under age.
5. In my opinion, the petitioner is a sui juris and has reached the age of majority. The medical report had disclosed that her age is about 17/18 years. As she being sui juris had lawfully married a person of her own choice of her own accord and free-will and no offence as alleged in the F.I.R. Is made out. Conviction of the accused in the circumstances is not possible and continuance of investigation under these circumstances against the petitioner and other co-accused will simply amount to unnecessary harassm ent. The prosecution of the petitioner and her husband amounts to mala fide action on the part of the Investigating Agency in collusion with the complainant party and is just to harass the petitioner and her husband. Law does not prohibit a sui juris girl from marrying a person of her own choice and living them a legally-wedded wife as husband and wife.
This is their Constitutional guarantee and it cannot be taken away by anyone. It is the duty of the State to protect the marriage, the family, the mother and the child. I have gone through the citations cited at the bar. This Court in a Constitutional jurisdiction can interfere in the larger interest of justice and can quash the criminal investigation if it comes to the conclusion that continuance of the criminal investigation will not serve any purpose.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, this petition is of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station Qutabpur, Multan, is hereby quashed.
2004 P Cr. L 210 [Lahore] Before Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, JJ SHAUKAT ALI---Petitioner versus THE STATE---Respondent Criminal Revision No,715 of 2003, heard on 21st October, 2003.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 365-A/302/34/109---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.7 & 6---Revision---Application of accused, who claiined himself to be a "child" for transfer of his case to a Juvenile Court for trial, was dismissed by the Anti-Terrorism Court by means of the impugned order---Specific "design" or "purpose" contemplated by the provisions of S.6(1)(b) or (c) was not discernible from the F.I.R. And th'e case, thus, was not one of "terrorism" as envisaged by S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the same was to be tried by a Court of ordinary jurisdiction---Question of juvenility of the accused vis-a-vis the forum of his trial, therefore, was irrelevant as the case was now to be sent to a Court of ordinary jurisdiction and if the accused was a juvenile then such Court had to be a Juvenile Court and no other Court---Impugned order was consequently set aside with the direction to Anti- Terrorism Court to transmit the record of the case forthwith to the Court competent to try the case of accused---Revision petition was allowed accordingly. [p. 212] A & B Mazhar v. The State PLD 2003 Lah. 267 ref. Muhammad Nawaz Shah'for Petitioner. Tariq Shamim for the State.
Date of hearing: 21st October, 2003.
' ASIF SAEED KHAN.KHOSA, J.--- The petitioner is an accused person in case F.I.R. No,126 registered at Police Station Race Course, Lahore on 15-4-2002 for an offence under section 365-A, P.P.C. During the investigation sections 302/34/109, P.P.C. And section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were added to the F.I.R. After the submission of challan the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No,II, Lahore is presently seized of the trial of that case. An application had been submitted by the petitioner before the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No,II, Lahore seeking transfer of the petitioner's case to a Juvenile Court for holding a trial of the petitioner as the petitioner had claimed himself to be a "child" within the purview of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 but that application of the petitioner was dismissed by the leaned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No,II, Lahore vide order, dated 9-7-2003. Hence, the present revision petition before this Court.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance. It is apparent from the order passed by the learned Judge, Anti- Terrorism Court No,II, Lahore that the petitioner has been accepted to be a "child" within the purview of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 but at the same time it has been held by the said learned Court that even a "child" can be tried by a Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 if the offence committed by such a "child" can be said to involve terrorism.
In this backdrop.We have attended to the allegations contained in the F.I.R. In this case to find out whether the allegations being levelled by the prosecution involve terrorism or not as defined by section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. A bare reading of the F.I.R. Shows that the case in hand was one of a private transaction between the parties leading to an abduction and then murder and apparently the necessary "design" contemplated by the provisions of section 6(1)(b) or the requisite "purpose" contemplated by section 6(1)(c) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were missing in this case: It has already been held upon by this Court in the case of Mazliar v. The State PLD 2003 Lah. 267 (DB) that the erstwhile definition of "terrorist act" contained in section 7 of the Anti- Terrorism. Act, 1997 has already given way to a new definition of "Terrorism" in the substituted section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 which transformation had been brought about on 15-8- 2001 through the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance (XXXID of 2001). The said Amending Ordinance had brought about a sea change, and a drastic metamorphosis in the definition of terrorism. In the earlier definition the emphasis was on the effect, , i,e, a sense of fear and insecurity actually created by the action, or intended to be created or having a potential of creating such effect but in the Amended Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 emphasis is not on the effect of an action but on the "design" or the "purpose" behind that action. In the present case, as already observed above, the specific "design" or "purpose" contemplated by the provisions of section 6(1)(b) or (c) is not discernible from the reading of the F.I.R. And, therefore, it can safely be concluded by us that the case in hand was not one of the "terrorism" as contemplated by the provisions of section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and, therefore, the case in hand is to be tried by a Court of ordinary jurisdiction. In view of this conclusion arrived at by us the question of juvenility of the petitioner vis- a-vis the forum of his trial becomes irrelevant as the case in hand is now be sent to a Court of ordinary jurisdiction and if the petitioner is a juvenile then such Court has to be a Juvenile Court and no other Court.
3. For what has been discussed above this revision petition is allowed, the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No,II, Lahore on 9-7-2003 is hereby set aside, the application of the petitioner filed under section 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is allowed and the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No,II, Lahore is directed to transmit the record of this case forthwith to the Court competent to try the petitioner's case.
Revision .