MUHAMMAD AZIM Versus State
This matter arises from a petition filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of First Information Report No. 50 registered under section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Havelian, District Abbottabad. The core legal question is whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR at the initial stage based on the claim of a free-will marriage between the petitioner and the alleged abductee. The court held that the inherent powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised to override express provisions of law or to defeat the ordinary course of law and stifle prosecution at the initial investigation stage, particularly when the identity of the alleged abductee is unverified. The key principle laid down is that criminal proceedings at the initial stage should not be prematurely quashed when an adequate remedy is available before the trial court under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon completion of investigation.
- Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash an FIR at the initial investigation stage based on a free-will marriage?
- Whether ordinary criminal proceedings should be stifled at the initial stage when the identity of the alleged abductee is unverified?
- Is a petition for quashment maintainable under section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an alternative remedy is available before the trial court?
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
GHULAM MOHY-UD-DIN, J.--- By this petition filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks quashment of F.I.R. -No.50 dated 12-1-2008 registered under section 365-B, P.P.C. at Police Station Havelian, 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 override the expressed provisions of law, on the subject 1999 MLD pages 465, 535, PLD 1967 SC 317 and 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.
H.B.T.1195/P Petition dismisse