Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal miscellaneous No. 414/Q of 1974, decided on 12fh December 1974.
--‑S. 561‑A read witty Penal Cods (XLV of 1860), Ss. 494 & 498 Proceedings under Ss. 494 & 498, P. P. C.‑Whether or not alleged offence made out against petitioner needing examine‑ Section of evidence not brought on record‑No sufficient ground shown for quashing for proceedings‑petition a dismissed.
Muhammad Nasar Ullah Waraich for Petitioners.
M. A. Gohar for Respondent No. 1.
Raja Muhammad Khalid for the State.
Khushi Mohammad, Mst. Satara Bibi and Habib filed this petition under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C., for quashing the proceedings in complaint titled Nazar Mohammed v. Khushi Mohammad etc. under sections 494 and 498, P. P. C., pending in the Court of Magistrate, Kot Addu.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Mst. Satara petitioner was not the wedded wife of Nazar Mohammad complainant respondent and the marriage between the two had been dissolved by a competent Court on 6th play 19 ,8, and thus, the complaint could not proceed under sections 494 and 498, P. P. C.; that the learned Magistrate discharged Mst. Satara petitioner vide his order dated 25th February 1974, but subsequently he reviewed his previous order, on 25th June 1974, and recommended Mst. Satara and the said order was an illegal one. The learned counsel for Nazar Mohammad respondent contended that the respondent filed suit against Mst. Satara and others, for restitution of conjugal rights and his suit was decreed on 10th January 1969, and the Judge, Family Court gave a finding that Mst. Satara was the wedded, wife of the respondent.
3. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the file. Mst. Satara petitioner No. 2 was married to Nazar Mohammad respondent on 2 th November 1965, and the Nikah was duly entered in the Nikah register. Mo. Satara filed suit for dissolution of marriage on 5th January 198, before Judge Family Court, Lahore. Nazar Mohammad respondent resided at Kot Addu, District Muzaffargath He was not personally served. He was served by publication in the news paper. Ex parte decree was passed against him on 6th May 1968. Nazar Mohammad respondent filed suit on 13th November 1967, for restitution of conjugal rights. This suit had been filed before Mst. Satara had filed suit for dissolution of marriage. Suit of Nazar Mohammad was decreed on 10th January 1969. Nazar Mohammad filed execution petition on 16th April 1969. It has been admitted in the present petition that petitioner No. 1 married petitioner No. 2 and at the time of their marriage, the marriage of petitioner No. 2 with respondent No. 1 did not subsist and as such, no offence under sections 494 and 498, t'. P. C. was committed. The petitioner did not place any document on the record to show as to when petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 got married. It is also a matter of evidence as to whether Nazar Mohammad respondent had informed the petitioners that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights had been passed against Mst. Satara and others by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Hence this matter cannot be determined in the present petition. Both the parties would produce their respective evidence before the learned Magistrate, who would give a finding as to whether the offences under sections 494 and 498, P. P. C. had been committed or not.
The learned Magistrate, discharged Mst. Satara vide his order dated 25th February 1974. Subsequently, he came to the finding that she had been discharged inadvertently and vide his order dated 25th June 1974, summoned her. If Mst. Satara is aggrieved of the said order that the Magistrate could not review his earlier order, she can avail of legal remedy against the said order. Similarly, Nazar Mohammad respondent can also file a revision petition, if so advised, against the order dated 25‑2‑1974, whereby Mst. Satara was discharged.
4. So far as petition for quashing the proceedings is concerned, in the circumstances of the case, I do not find any sufficient ground to quash the proceedings.
With these observations, the petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer