Through the instant writ petition, Mst. Rafia, petitioner has knocked the door of this Court with the following facts and assertions. As per writ petitioner, she had performed Nikah with Rehmat All son of Nazir Ahamd caste Goreja, resident of Thull Hamza, Tehsil . Liaqatpur on 5-12-1993 with the consent of her parents. Levelling the allegations against her father, she has narrated that her father was a drug addict and had used to take money from her husband for that purpose. When her husband refused to pay the amount, he was annoyed from that refusal and forced the petitioner to get divorce from her husband. As she was pregnant, so she refused to have a divorce from her husband. When petitioner was pressurized too much through police, she decided to get a help from this Court, so she had filed Writ Petition No.58 of 2004/BWP (Mst. Rafia v. S.H.O. And others) in this Court on 8-1-2004, wherein the S.H.Os. Of two police stations were directed not to harass or interfere into matrimonial life of the petitioner. In spite of this, Ghulam Yaseen, respondent No.2 in collusion with the police of Police Station Uch Sharif, got registered an F.I.R. No.50 of 2004 on 13-2- 2004 under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 109 of the P.P.C., in which the occurrence of abduction was shown to have taken place between 6th and 7th of February, 2004 and the petitioner was shown to be a married girl whose marriage was allegedly solemnized with one Manzoor Ahmad son of Ghulam Farid but "Rukhsti" had not taken place. According to the story of F.I.R., Rehmat Ali had developed his illicit relations with Mst. Rafia Bibi and, therefore, this occurrence of abduction had taken place. Since police commenced its investigation, so the petitioner Mst. Rafia Bibi filed this writ petition on 10-3-2004 seeking quashment of the aforesaid F.I.R.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that Mst. Rafia who .Is a married lady has been continuously pressurized to get divorce from Rehmat Ali with whom she claims to have contracted a legal and valid marriage. Pleading the case of Mst. Rafia Bibi, learned counsel has submitted that version of prior marriage with Manzoor Ahmad son of Ghulam Farid was also got decided by Mst. Rafia Bibi by filing a suit for jactitation of marriage before the learned Judge Family Court in which Manzoor Ahmad son of Ghulam Farid had appeared himself and had stated on oath that Mst. Rafia was not her wife and had consented the passing of decree for jactitation of marriage in favour of Mst. Rafia Bibi. Learned Judge Family Court had passed the decree on 27-2-2003 in favour of Mst. Rafia Bibi. So the main ground of Ghulam. Yaseen, respondent No.2 and of the police that Mst. Rafia Bibi was wife of Manzoor Ahmad had vanished, and the registration of the case was proved to be a mala fide act not only by the police yet by respondent No.2 also. On 30-3-2004, it was informed by the police that the Investigating Officer was now going to add section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and was trying to apprehend her. Sajjad Ahmad, S.-I. Of Police Station Uch Sharif was directed to complete the investigation on 6-4-2004 but from the conduct of the aforesaid Police Officer, it is evident that the Police is prepared at all costs to involve the petitioner in the offence of Zina-bil- Raza without any reasonable justification.
3. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and consulting the record, I have decided that this case of F.I.R. Merits quashment on the following grounds:--
(i) Mst. Rafia Bibi claims her marriage with Rehmat Ali and this fact is also admitted by Rehmat . Ali.
In other words, both admit the factum of marriage and their living as husband and wife.
(ii) Whether any other person has got right to agitate that both these spouses are not wife and husband, particularly when the girl was virgin prior to marriage being disputed? This question has already been solved and resolved by the Hon'ble Federal Shariat Court in PLD 1982 Federal Shariat Court 42 (Arif Hussain and others v. The State) and PLD 1984 Federal Shariat Court 93 (Muhammad Ramzan v. State), in which it has been held that two persons, if claim to be husband and wife, in such cases their admission is sufficient proof of marriage. In these circumstances, police or Ghulam Yaseen cannot question the correctness of the Nikah of Mst. Rafia with Rehmat Ali.
(iii) The main allegation against the petitioner as asserted in the F.I.R. Is that she was married to one Manzoor Ahmad son of Ghulam Farid, and, therefore, she could not solemnize marriage with Rehmat Ali. To wash off this accusation, the petitioner had filed a suit for jactitation of marriage in which the aforesaid Manzoor Ahmad appeared and made his statement that Mst. Rafia Bibi was not her wife. The suit was decreed in favour of Mst. Rafia. After the passing of the decree of jactitation of marriage, the main allegations/ accusation against Mst. Rafia Bibi now cannot be sustained in the eye of law and no other ,person even her father can challenge that Mst. Rafia is not legally wedded wife of Rehamt Ali.
(iv) The insistence of the Police, Ghulam Yaseen, respondent No.2 to involve Mst. Rafia Bibi, in a case of illicit relations with Rehmat Ali is not based on bona fide intention. After obtaining the decree for jactitation of marriage, the factum of marriage of Mst. Rafia with B Rehmat Ali cannot be denied or refuted by the Police as well as by her father. Further probe into the validity or legality, or its existence or non-existence cannot be permitted as it would be an attempt to convert the legal marriage into concubinage relationship forcing a married couple into an offence which they have not committed in view of any provision of law.
4. All the above facts prima facie give out the picture of the true intents of both the police and respondents who are bent upon to involve Mst. Rafia Bibi and her husband Rehmat Ali into a criminal offence and to kneel them down for the purpose of getting compliance of their dictatorial and whimsical orders. These proceedings cannot be termed but an abuse of the process of law. I cannot permit them to use it to humiliate and harass a married couple and to interfere into their marital life by continuing the progress of mala fide investigation and process of prosecution. So, I quash the F.I.R. And subsequent proceedings by accepting this writ petition.
' F.I.R. And .