Syed TOFAZAL HUSSAIN SHAH And 2 Others vs THE STATE and others-
This petition for quashment challenged proceedings initiated under section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, against the petitioners. The complainant alleged that her husband had contracted a second marriage without her permission. The petitioners, who were not parties to the marriage, argued that the Magistrate at Sheikhupura lacked territorial jurisdiction as the marriage occurred in Lahore, and further contended that the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code regarding abetment were inapplicable to the special law under which the complaint was filed. The Court held that the Magistrate lacked territorial jurisdiction because the marriage took place in Lahore. Furthermore, the Court determined that the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, specifically regarding abetment, cannot be invoked in proceedings under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, as it is a special law. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition and set aside the impugned order, noting the absence of any alleged overt act or evidence of abetment by the petitioners.
- Does a Magistrate have territorial jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, if the marriage occurred outside their jurisdiction?
- Can the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code regarding abetment be applied to offences under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
- Are third parties who are not involved in the marriage liable for abetment under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
- Section 6(5), Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. The facts leading to the filing of this petition for quashment are that respondent No.2, Mst. Taskeen Azra, had filed a complaint under section 6(5) of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, against Syed Liaquat Ali Naqvi, her husband with the allegation that without prior permission of the complainant he had contracted marriage with Mst. Qasada Masooma. After recording of the preliminary evidence the learned Magistrate issued process to her husband as well as against the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset submits that the occurrence on 23rd March had taken place at Lahore, therefore, the learned Magistrate at Sheikhupura did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Argues that petitioners were neither party to the marriage nor they could be tried for having abetted the offence because the provision of Pakistan Penal Code could not be applied to the provision of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961.
3. I have heard the learned counsel at length. Admittedly the accused in the complaint case had contracted marriage at Lahore. No overt act qua any of the petitioners is alleged. There is no evidence of abetment. The provision of section 109, P.P.C. Cannot be attracted to special laws, therefore, relying upon Ahmad Ullah and another v. The Cantonment Board Lahore Cantonment and another PLD 1968 Lah. 703, I accept the petition and set aside the order impugned. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.