BASHARAT IQBAL Versus STATE

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.‑‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought against the dismissal of the High Court of a quashment application filed under section 561‑A of the Cr.P.C. The case has arisen out of a family dispute.

2. According to the facts given by the learned counsel a private complaint was filed by the respondent No.2 (petitioner's sister‑in‑law) against her husband and the petitioner under section 6(5) of the Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The second marriage of the petitioner's brother which is the subject‑matter of this complaint which allegedly was without requisite proceedings before the arbitration council took place in March, 1987 at Hyderabad‑Sindh. The allegation against the petitioner and his brother was that both of them failed to disclose to the Nikah Khawan at Hyderabad about the subsistence of the earlier marriage of the complainant with the petitioner's brother and thus they had committed fraud.

3. Learned counsel while admitting that the petitioner was present at the questioned marriage urged, that he is not liable as an abettor under section 6(5), both on the language used in that provision as well as on merits.

4. In the High Court the main question pressed was that the Court at Lahore had no jurisdiction to try the complaint. This plea was rejected by a learned Judge on the assumption that the case was governed by section 179 of the Cr.P.C. Reliance was also placed on Nazabat v. The State and another (1971 Pak. Cr.LJ. 148) and the Dacca case namely; Abu Safian v. The State (18 DLR Dacca 230) was distinguished.

5. After hearing the learned counsel at some length with regard to the merits of the case including the question whether, section 6(5) would be applicable or not we consider it fit to leave them to be raised and pressed before the learned trial Court with a further observation that in case the petitioner fails he would have opportunity of seeking further remedy in the higher Court.

6. Regarding the territorial jurisdiction, the High Court judgment in so far as it goes, seems unexceptionable. Besides when it was pointed out to the learned counsel that in the facts and circumstances of this case the relevant provisions contained in section 182, Criminal Procedure Code are attracted and thus both the Courts at Hyderabad and Lahore would have jurisdiction to try the matter, he remained unable to render any satisfactory reply in this behalf. Accordingly finding no merit in this petition leave to appeal is refused.

7. N.H.Q./B‑216/S Leave refused.