ATTA MUHAMMAD and another vs DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER, SANGHAR and 4
This matter arises from a constitutional petition filed by the petitioners, including petitioner No. 2 who was allegedly abducted in Crime No. 74 of 2010 registered under Section 365-B/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Sarhari. Petitioner No. 2 appeared before the court and stated that she had not been abducted and had instead contracted a marriage with petitioner No. 1, rendering the criminal case false. The court directed the Investigating Officer to record her voluntary statement, which reiterated her stance. Conceding that prosecution would be futile, the Assistant Advocate-General and the Investigating Officer supported the termination of proceedings. The Sindh High Court converted the petition into a Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quashed the criminal proceedings emanating from the said crime. The key principle laid down is that where an alleged victim of abduction categorically states on record that no abduction took place and that she contracted a free-will marriage, continuing criminal proceedings serves no useful purpose and may be quashed to prevent abuse of the court's process.
- Can criminal proceedings for abduction be quashed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. when the alleged victim denies the abduction and states she contracted a marriage?
- Whether a constitutional petition can be converted into a criminal miscellaneous application for quashing of an FIR?
- Is prosecution considered an exercise in futility when the alleged abductee refuses to support the charge?
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' Petitioners along with their counsel present.
2. ' Since the petitioner No,2 has stated before us that she has not been abducted by any one and on the contrary she has married petitioner No,1 viz. Atta Muhammad and the Crime No, 74 of 2010 under section 365-B-34, P.P.C. Of Police Station Sarhari of her abduction is totally false. We consequently felt it more appropriate to ask the Investigating Officer to record her statement in order to ensure that the statement is voluntary. The statement has been recorded and placed on record in which the petitioner No,2 has reiterated her earlier stands. In the circumstances, learned Assistant Advocate-General as well as the I/O states that in view of the statement of the petitioner No,2 that she has not been abducted, the Crime No,74 of 2010 of Police Station Sarhari cannot A successfully be prosecuted and the prosecution of the nominated accused in the said crime would be an exercise in futility. In the fact and circumstances we while converting this petition into Criminal Miscellaneous Application under. Section 561-A Cr.P.C. Quash the proceedings emanating from Crime No,74 of 2010 of Police Station Sarhari. Office is directed to number the petition accordingly. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.