| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 2589 2016 SLD 2589 2016 PCRLJ 1475 |
IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, JUSTICE
Muhammad Ali Siddiqui for Petitioners. M.R. Fakhar Baloch for
Respondent No.2. Muhammad Abdul Wadood, Deputy Prosecutor-General with Ghulam Sub-Inspector for the State.
KAUSAR PARVEEN AND anothers
VS
. SHO POLICE STATION CITY JALALPUR, PIR WALA, DISTRICT MULTAN AND 2 OTHERS
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 375, 376, 380, 457, 493-A & 496-B---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A---Rape, theft in dwelling house, lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night, cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage, enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a woman---Quashing of FIR---Respondent got registered a criminal case, with the allegation that petitioner being his legally wedded wife entered into a marriage with another person (also petitioner) which was a criminal offence---Theft of gold ornaments and some cash amount was also alleged in the FIR---Suit for dissolution of marriage, filed by petitioner on 9-7-2013 against the respondent, was decreed in ex parte proceedings on 6-9-2013; and on the very next day i.e. on 7-9-2013, petitioner entered into marriage with the said person (petitioner)---Earlier to the filing of suit for dissolution of marriage on 9-7-2013, petitioner preferred a suit for jactitation of marriage on 23-5-2013, which was withdrawn on 4-7-2013---Since 23-5-2013, the date of filing of the first suit for jactitation, she had no matrimonial contact with respondent---When on 7-9-2013, the petitioners entered into a marriage, period of "Iddat", if any, to be observed, stood already expired in favour of petitioner, in absence of any matrimonial link of petitioner with respondent---Marriage of the petitioners, even if was considered as "irregular marriage" on 7-9-2013, same had attained the status of "regular marriage" by efflux of time from the point, where 'Iddat' period was supposed to have expired---Criminal case registered through impugned FIR, had entirely been registered on wrong premises; and no criminality was established even prima facie; connecting the petitioners with alleged crime---High Court observed that if said FIR, was permitted to remain in the field, it would not only a wastage of precious time of the courts, but also the wastage of the precious time of Investigating Agency; and result in causing unjustified interference in the matrimonial life of the petitioners on the strength of a valid marriage---No further proceedings on the basis…
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