Syed Amjad Gillani vs Muhammad Sadiq and others
This matter arises from a petition impugning the judgment of the High Court of Sindh whereby an F.I.R. registered under Sections 392, 365 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code was quashed. The core legal question concerned the propriety of quashing an F.I.R. involving allegations of abduction and theft where the alleged abductee, being sui juris, categorically stated before the court that she married of her own free will and was not abducted, and that the criminal proceedings were instituted mala fide by her father due to a marital dispute. The Supreme Court held that the constitutional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court to quash the proceedings was justified under the circumstances and declined to interfere with the impugned judgment. The key principle laid down is that where an alleged victim of abduction who is sui juris denies the occurrence and affirms a free-will marriage, refusing to support the allegations in the F.I.R., the High Court may appropriately quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law.
- Whether the High Court can quash an F.I.R. under Article 199 of the Constitution when the alleged abductee who is sui juris states she married of her free will?
- Does a statement by an alleged victim denying abduction provide sufficient ground for quashing criminal proceedings?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with a discretionary constitutional order of the High Court refusing to penalize a free-will marriage?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Article 199, Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Article 185(3), Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J. -- The petitioner impugns the judgment dated 18.10.2012 passed by the learned Division Bench of High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in C.P. No. D-2013 of 2012 whereby learned High Court quashed the F.I.R. Registered on 11.5.2012 in respect of incident occurred on 16.4.2012. In the F.t.R. It was alleged that respondents No. 2, 3 & 7 who are brother and cousin inter se criminally trespassed into the house of the petitioner and taken away gold ornaments, cash and while going they abducted respondent No. 4. The respondents filed petition before the learned High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 for quashing the proceedings alleging therein that respondent No. 4 was sui-juris who with her free will had married respondent No. 3 and from the wedlock a child has been born. The petitioner has filed instant petition impugned the judgment of the High Court, the relevant portion thereof is reproduced as under:--- "In consequence to the orders dated 26.9.2012, 11.10.2012 and 17.10.2012, whereby Mst. Sidra ,Shehnaz (petitioner No. 4) stated that neither she has been abducted by anyone nor she brought anything from the house of her parents and no such offence has been committed at all regarding F.I.R.
2. Bearing Crime No. 101/2012 of P.S. Shershah for offence punishable under Sections 392, 365 and 34, P.P.C. She states that her father being annoyed lodged said F.I.R., wherein her husband Shahbaz Ali (petitioner No. 3) and his relatives were roped with main) fide intention. The order dated 11.10.2012 reflects that the father of petitioner No. 4 intended to settle the dispute in case her daughter Sidra Shahbaz after delivery of new born obtains divorce from her husband, rejoins him and also gives up the custody of newly born in favour of her husband, as according to him, this child was conceived before her marriage. This attitude of the father was quite astonishing and shocking for petitioner No. 4, she, therefore again on 17.10.2012 refused to go with her parents and stated that she intends to go with Shahbaz All (petitioner No. 3) as she has contracted marriage with him, who is her husband."
3. That the learned High Court on the basis of respective arguments made by the parties came to the conclusion that since respondent No. 4 who is sui-juris person make the statement that she entered into marriage with respondent No. 3 and have child from said marriage and instant F.I.R.
4. Has been lodged with male fide intention in which the brothers and cousin of respondent No. 3 have been roped, quashed the F.I.R.
2. We have taken into consideration the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. The petition under Articles 185(3) & 199 of the Constitution is a discretionary relief to meet the ends of justice. The impugned judgment in the circumstances of this case when respondent No. 3 daughter of the petitioner who is sui-juris made a statement that she has not been abducted, does not call for interference by this Court. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.