Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 3847 2016 SLD 3847 2016 YLR 2016
Lahore High Court
W.P. 1144 of 2015, decided on 27th February, 2015.
CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD, JUSTICE
Ms. Farzana Kausar Rana for Petitioner.

MST. AYESHA MALIK-

VS

. S.H.O. POLICE STATION CITY JAMPUR DISTRICT RAJANPUR AND 4 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----- -----S. 365-B-----Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A-----Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage-----Quashing of FIR-----Petitioner/ alleged abductee, had sought quashing of FIR, on the ground that she being sui juris, had contracted marriage with respondent, with her free consent; and that no body had abducted her-----Copy of Nikahnama, annexed with the petition, showed that Nikah was performed-----Contents of petition, as well as other documents available on record, like Nikahnama and certified copy of the statement of the petitioner before the Illaqa Magistrate, showed factum of marriage between the petitioner and respondent-----Petitioner, herself appeared before the court, and supported the contents of the petition; and affidavit submitted by her stating that she had contracted marriage with her free consent and without any pressure; and that she was not abducted by any body-----After her admission of having contracted marriage with respondent, there remained no case, or charge to be tried-----Case being fit for quashing of FIR, petition was allowed and impugned FIR, was ordered to be quashed, in circumstances. Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan PLD 1967 SC 317; Haqnawaz v. Muhammad Afzal and others 1968 SCMR 1256; Malik Salman Khalid v. Shabbir Ahmad 1998 SCMR 873 and Miraj Khan v. Gull Ahmed and 3 others 2000 SCMR 122 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan----- -----Art. 199-----Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A-----Inherent powers of High Court-----Scope-----High Court had inherent powers to pass such order as could be necessary to prevent abuse of process of court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice-----Phrase "ends of justice", though, had not been defined in the Cr.P.C., nor in any other statute, but 'ends of justice' would necessarily mean the just, as administered by the courts; and not in its abstract sense-----Where the continuation of process of the court would result in futile exercise and undue harassment; it would be in the fitness of things, and in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings-----Abuse of process of court signified the perversion of very…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492