QAYUM NAWAZ and others vs DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER, D.I. KHAN and others
This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the quashment of FIR No. 204, registered under Sections 496-A and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, at Police Station Yarik, D.I. Khan. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to quash an FIR when the petitioners allege that the alleged abductee had entered into a marriage of her own free will, as evidenced by her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the FIR disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence, which necessitates a proper investigation and the recording of evidence. The Court emphasized that a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, taken in the absence of the complainant, cannot be treated as conclusive proof at the pre-trial stage, as it has not yet been subjected to cross-examination. Consequently, the Court ruled that the matter must be adjudicated through a full trial rather than through a summary quashment proceeding.
- Can an FIR be quashed under Article 199 of the Constitution when it discloses a cognizable offence?
- Is a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sufficient grounds to quash an FIR without trial?
- Should the High Court interfere in criminal investigations where the determination of facts requires cross-examination of witnesses?
- Article 199, Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Section 496-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
SHAKEEL AHMAD, J.---Through this constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners Qayum Nawaz and 04 others seeking quashment of FIR No,204 dated 13.8.2016 registered under sections 496-A/109, P.P.C. at Police Station Yarik, D.I. Khan.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.7.2016, the complainant/respondent No,4 Amanullah lodged a written report at Police Station Yarik to the effect that in the night between 20/21.03.2016, accused Atiqullah enticed away her daughter Asma Aman for the purpose of committing Zina along with gold ornaments weighing 04 tolas and cash amount of Rs,96,780/- at the behest of accused Shafiullah, Master Attaullah sons of Inayatullah, Inayatullah son of Habibullah, Mst. Sakina Bibi wife of Inayatullah, Mst. Samina daughter of Inayatullah and Qayum Nawaz son of Rabnawaz.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Mst. Asma Aman had entered into marriage with accused Atiqullah of her own free will on 21.3.2016 and to this effect her statement was recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, D.I. Khan on 25.8.2016, wherein she refuted the allegations of her abduction; that the whole family has been roped with mala fide intention; that on the face of it, the FIR is false and frivolous. He prayed for quashment of FIR.
4. On the other hand, the learned Addl: A.G. representing the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/ complainant jointly argued that on the face of it, the petitioners have committed a cognizable offence and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners can only be adjudicated upon after recording pro and contra evidence and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that the contents of FIR constitute; commission of a cognizable offence and for reaching to a correct conclusion, proper investigation, inquiry and pro and contra evidence is required to be recorded in the Court of competent jurisdiction.
7. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the alleged abductee has entered into marriage with accused Atiqullah of her own free will and she appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate and got recorded her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C., this was recorded in the absence of the respondent/complainant party, and this statement, is yet to touch the taste of cross-examination. Therefore, in these circumstances the entertainment of this petition is unjustified on account of having no substance in it. In this respect we are fortified by the judgment of the apex Court in case reported as "Bashir Ahmad v. Zafer-ul-Islam" (PLD 2004 SC 298) and "Sher Afgan Khan Niazi v. All Habib and others' (2011 SCM R 1813).
8. For what has been discussed above, the writ petition being bereft of merit is dismissed