MUHAMMAD AZIM vs STATE
The petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of an FIR registered under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, on the ground that the parties had contracted a free-consent marriage. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash an FIR at the initial stage based on a disputed marriage, bypassing the ordinary course of law. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the inherent powers under Section 561-A should not be used to override express legal provisions or to stifle the prosecution at the initial stage, especially where the identity of the alleged abductee could not be reliably established in court. The court laid down the principle that ordinary criminal proceedings should not be prematurely truncated, and the accused may instead seek remedy before the trial court under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the completion of investigation.
- Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash an FIR at the initial stage based on a claim of free-consent marriage?
- Can criminal proceedings be stifled under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the identity of the alleged abductee is not reliably established before the court?
- Is it open for an accused to apply for acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the completion of investigation if the charge is found groundless?
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
By this petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks quashment of FIR No, 50 dated 12.01.2008 registered under Section 365-B PPC at Police Station HaveHan, District Abbottabad, merely on the ground that the parties being grown up have contracted marriage with their free consent and that they have been booked falsely by the uncle of petitioner. Mst. Gulshad daughter of Muhammad Siddique; that she being sui-juris had contracted marriage with her free consent according to Sharia. Muhammadi and they are living together as husband and wife since registration of their nikah; that after the marriage they settled in Dera Ghazi Khan due to fear of her family members who were unhappy on their love marriage; that after the nikah continuation of criminal proceedings against them would not advance the cause of justice particularly when they have contracted marriage with their free consent.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned State counsel and also gone through the record of the case.
3. I wanted to dispose of the petition on merits and in this connection examined the lady, who has been introduced as Mst. Gulshad Bibi, the alleged abductee of the instant case. She is neither in possession of her identity card nor there is any reliable person to identify her in Court for the purpose of disposal of this petition. Besides, the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. are not supposed to be exercised to over ride the expressed provisions of law, on the subject, 1999 MLD pages 465, 535, PLD 1967 SC 317 & PLD 1997 SC 275 can be conveniently referred and relied upon. The theme of these authorities is that ordinary course of law should not be allowed to be defeated nor this Court is required to stifle the prosecution case at the very initial stage of the proceedings. Let on completion of investigation the case may be put in Court and there it will be open for the parties to apply for consideration of the case within the meaning of Section 265-K, Cr.P.C. and in case the charge is found groundless then naturally the trial Court will be competent to exercise its powers lawfully and judiciously.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition being meritless stands dismissed.