Wednesday, 30 May 2012

Abduction has to be proved in absence of Nikahnama

PLJ 2010 Lahore 676
[Multan Bench Multan]

Present: Hassan Raza Pasha, J.

SAKINA BIBI and another--Petitioners



W.P. No. 4003-Q of 2010, heard on 29.6.2010.

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--

----Art. 199--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 365-B--Constitutional petition--Quashing of FIR--Allegation of abduction--Copy of Nikahnama--Statement u/S. 164, Cr.P.C. was available--Marriage was contracted with her free will and consent--Neither abducted nor subject to any illicit intercourse--No document regarding lesser age of petitioner had been brought on record--Validity--Being sui juris had contracted marriage with co-petitioner which did not constitute any offence--No chance of conviction of accused persons of impugned FIR--Star witness of the case alleged abductee had denied the allegation of abduction--Petitioner was not abducted by any other rather she willfully contracted marriage--FIR was quashed.    [P. 678] A

Haji Muhammad Tariq Aziz, Advocate for Petitioners.

Mr. Tahir Mehmood, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

Mehr Nazar Abbas Chawan AAG for State.

Date of hearing: 29.6.2010.


The petitioners seek quashment of FIR No.290 dated 27.04.2010 u/S. 365-B PPC registered at P.S Chowk Azam District Layyah.

2.  Allegedly the Petitioner No. 2 alongwith his co-accused abducted Petitioner No. 1 daughter of complainant with the intention to commit Zina with her.

3.  Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioner No. 1 was never abducted by anyone rather she is legally wedded wife of petitioner, therefore, allegations leveled in the FIR are quite false, frivolous, against facts and concocted. It is also contended that Respondent No. 2 was well within the knowledge of marriage of petitioners. The Petitioner No.1 also got recorded her statement u/S. 164 Cr.P.C. in which she denied her previous marriage and alleged abduction.

4.  Learned AAG as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the instant petition on the grounds that the question whether the petitioners contracted valid marriage or not is factual in nature, which will be determined after recording evidence. The Petitioner No.2 forcibly abducted Petitioner No.1 aged about 14/15 years and compelled her for marriage and the same disclosed a cognizable offence so the consent, if any, is of no value and instant petition is liable to be dismissed

5.  Arguments heard. Record perused.

6.  Perusal of copy of Nikah Nama reveals that age of Petitioner No. 1 is 19 years. Copy of statement of Petitioner No. 1 u/S. 164 Cr.P.C. is also available on record in which she categorically stated that she contracted marriage with Petitioner No. 2 with her free will and consent. She further stated that she was neither abducted nor subjected to any illicit intercourse. No document regarding lesser age of Petitioner No. 1 has been brought on record. The Petitioner No. 1 being sui juris has contracted  marriage with Petitioner No. 2 which does not constitute any offence. Moreover there is no chance of conviction of accused persons of impugned FIR, as star witness of the case i.e. alleged abductee has denied the allegation of abduction. In these circumstances it is clear that Petitioner No. 1 was not abducted by anyone rather she willfully contracted marriage with Petitioner No. 2. Therefore instant writ petition is accepted and impugned FIR No. 290 dated 27.4.2010 u/S. 365-B PPC registered at P.S Chowk Azam District Layyah is hereby quashed.

(R.A.)  Petition accepted.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Contact International Lawyer

If you have any queries related with this post you can contact at

Salman Yousaf Khan
International Lawyer