Hafiz SHADOO vs ABDUL GHAFFAR and anothers
This petition was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of an F.I.R. registered under Section 496-A/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant alleged that the petitioner and a co-accused abducted his sister, who was already in a Nikah with another man, and stole valuables. The core legal question was whether the criminal proceedings should continue when the alleged abductee appeared before the Court, denied the abduction, and asserted that she had entered into a valid marriage with the co-accused of her own free will. The Court held that the complainant's narrative lost all credibility given the abductee's statement confirming her voluntary marriage and her denial of abduction. The Court reasoned that continuing the prosecution would be a futile exercise as it would inevitably result in an acquittal. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition and quashed the F.I.R., noting that any disputes regarding the validity of the prior Nikah should be agitated before the appropriate forum.
- Can an F.I.R. be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the alleged abductee denies the abduction and asserts a voluntary marriage?
- Is it a futile exercise to continue criminal proceedings when the evidence clearly indicates an inevitable acquittal?
- Does the Court have the authority to quash an F.I.R. where the complainant's version is contradicted by the statement of the alleged victim?
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 496-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' 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.