Hafiz Shadoo vs Abdul Ghaffar

2013 P Cr. L J 434

[Peshawar]

Before Qaiser Rashid Khan, J

Hafiz SHADOO---Petitioner

Versus

ABDUL GHAFFAR and another---Respondents

Criminal Miscellaneous Quashment Petition No.31 of 2012, decided on 13th March, 2012.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 496-A/34---Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a woman, common intention---Quashing of F.I.R.---Allegation against accused and co-accused was that they abducted the alleged abductee for contracting marriage with her when she was already married to another person---Validity---Alleged abductee along with the co-accused appeared before the High Court and stated they had performed Nikah in accordance with Sharia---Alleged abductee stated that the complainant (brother of alleged abductee) had falsely implicated the accused in the case and being sui juris, she of her own will and volition had entered into wedlock with the co-accused---Said another person with whom alleged Nikah of abductee had been performed earlier did not turn up to lend support to the version of the complainant---Story narrated by the complainant had lost its significance as well as its veracity when alleged abductee had herself spilled the beans about her alleged abduction--- Quashment petition was accepted and the F.I.R. was quashed.

Sher Khan and Kamran Baloch for Petitioner.

Sanaullah Shamim, D.A.-G. for the State.

Malik Atta Muhammad for the Complainant.

Date of hearing: 13th March, 2012.

JUDGMENT

QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.---Through this petition filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., the petitioner, Hafiz Shadu son of Muhammad Hayat, seeks the Quashment of case F.I.R. No.30 dated 8-2-2012 registered under section 496-A/34, P.P.C. at police station, Parao, District D.I. Khan.

2.Succinct facts of the instant case are that the complainant/respondent No.1 lodged a report at Police Station Paroa to the effect that his sister, namely Rashida Bibi was found missing from her house and after hectic search he learnt that she was abducted by the petitioner and his co-accused Jehangir for contracting marriage with her although she was already in the nikah of one Javed but her rukhsati had not taken place as yet and that the abductee had taken away seven tolas of gold, 20 pairs of clothes and Rs.2,00,000 in cash while leaving her house. His report was entered in daily diary No.15 dated 27-1-2012 and the local police after conducting inquiry under section 156(3), Cr.P.C. registered the ibid case F.I.R.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the F.I.R. registered against him was based on sheer mala fide and as is very much apparent from its contents the same is per se an unbelievable story. He further argued that the alleged abductee, namely, Rashida Bibi had contracted a valid marriage with accused Jehangir and referred to the nikahnama in this respect.

4.Learned D.A.-G. assisted by learned counsel complainant/ respondent No.1 argued that the accused/petitioner along with co-accused Jehangir had abducted the sister of complainant and to date her whereabouts are not known and that his complicity in her abduction is all the more evident as he has also signed the nikahnama as a witness though she was already in the nikah of one Javed son of Gul Muhammad but rukhsati had not taken place.

5.In the meanwhile Rashida Bibi along with co-accused Jehangir also appeared before the court and stated that they have performed nikah in accordance with sharia. Rashida Bibi stated that her brother i.e., complainant falsely implicated the petitioner in the case and being sui juris, she had of her own sweet-will and volition entered into wedlock with co-accused Jehangir. Strangely enough, Javed with whom the alleged nikah of Rashida Bibi had been performed earlier had not turned up to lend some support to the version of the complainant though he is supposed to be the most offended and aggrieved person in all this controversy.

6.In the above situation, the story narrated by the complainant has lost its significance as well as its veracity when Rashida Bibi has herself spilled the beans about her alleged abduction. Thus it would be a futile exercise to proceed further with the F.I.R. when the end result would be acquittal, given the statement of Rashida Bibi before this Court. As such, the instant quashment petition is accepted and the F.I.R. No.30 dated 8-12-2012 under section 496- A/34, P.P.C. Police Station, Paroa, D.I. Khan is hereby quashed. As far as the other alleged nikah with one Javed is concerned, the same may be agitated before the proper forum.

MWA/121/P Petition allowed.