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.
Writ Petition No. 2835 of 1984, heard on 4th December, 1985.
‑‑Art. 9‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Quashing of F. I. R.‑‑Allegations of abduction and adultery‑‑F,I.R. lodged after two years of occurrence‑‑Delay un explained‑‑Prosecution case was not only found to be false and fabricated but also male ‑fide and malicious‑‑F.I.R. was, therefore, quashed in circumstances.‑‑[ First Information Report].
M.D. Tahir for Petitioners.
Farooq Bedar, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 4th December, 1985.
Sakina Bibi wife of Muhammad Yar Muslim Sheikh, resident of Muradwala Police Station Chiniot, District Jhang and Fateh Bibi alias Fatti wife of Kurmalli, resident of Dora Chauki Munnian, Police Station Bhagtanwala, District Sargodha have filed this petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order of 1981. The relief prayed is "quashment of F.I.R. No. 229, dated 14‑11‑1983 registered against them at Police Station Bhagtanwali, District Sargodha at the instance of Kurmalli son of Pathana, caste Pawali, resident of Chah Dorewala Dakhli Chak No. 54 Janubi.
A case under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered against both mother, daughter and others.
According to the first informant, he was married to Fateh Bibi. She gave birth to a baby girl Sakina Bibi who is now 20/22 years of age. Two years prior to the lodging of the report one Dosa used to visit Sultan. Both these persons at the instance of one Mst. Bakhi took away Mst. Sakina and Fateh Bibi with the intention of committing rape with them.
The first informant further stated that both the petitioners were seen by Yara going along with Dose and Sultan. For two years he tried through the intervention of Bradri, that the two women be returned to Kurmalli but Sultan refused to return them.
According to the first informant, his wife and daughter had been kept by Doss and Yar Ali respectively. Both were committing adultery with the two women. They had been promising to return but did not do so and finally refused to hand over the two women to the first informant.
The sole contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner was that the aforesaid report was lodged after 2 years of the occurrence. This proved that the case was not only false and fabricated but mall fide and malicious.
I. have also heard the Assistant Advocate‑General. He could not give any effective reply to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. As a matter of fact, there is no explanation for the delay. It is, therefore, obvious that the contentions of the learned) counsel for the petitioners are unrebuttable. This petition is accordingly accepted. The F.I.H referred to above is hereby quashed
S.A. Petition accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer