ORDER SHEET
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
C.P.
No.D-2174 of 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Order with signature(s) of Judge(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
For Katcha Peshi
2)
For hearing of Misc. No.11241/2013
------------------------
30.05.2013
Mr.
Mushtaq Ahmed, Advocate along with Petitioners.
Mr.
Ahmed Ali Shah, A.A.G. along with ASI/I.O. Muhammad Panjal
Mr.
Siraj Ali, Advocate for Respondent No.4
------------------------------------------------------
Through the instant petition,
petitioners have prayed for quashment of F.I.R.
bearing Crime No.65/2013 under sections 365-B, 452, 148, 149 PPC. of P.S. Abad District Sukkur.
Notices were issued to the respondents
as well as Advocate General and Prosecutor General Sindh.
Investigation officer appeared today
in the Court and recorded statement of Mst. Rehana, in which she has stated that she has not been
abducted by Ghulam Abbas but she has married to Ghulam Abbas, petitioner No.1, with her freewill. Copies of
nikahnama and affidavit of freewill have been placed
on record.
In these circumstances, learned A.A.G.
states that he has no objection if the proceedings of above referred F.I.R. are
quashed.
This Court
provided sufficient time to Respondent No.4 and his daughter Mst. Rehana, to sit together and
think over the decision. Mst. Rehana is determined to go
with her husband and stated that she has married to Ghulam
Abbas and her father in order to pressurize her has lodged the above F.I.R. In
these circumstances, proceedings would be nothing but abuse of process of law.
Case would not end to conviction. Therefore, proceedings emanating
out of Crime No.65/2013 under sections 365-B, 452, 148, 149 PPC. of P.S.
Abad District Sukkur are hereby quashed while relying
upon the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Rizwana Bibi versus The
State and another (2012 SCMR 94), in which it has been observed that, “Notwithstanding petitioner’s
statement before this Court and her marriage with a person of her choice as
also the Constitutional command referred to above, we were surprised that the
learned State counsel still opposed the prayer for the quashment
of the case and insisted that petitioner should appear before the trial Court.”
Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that there is serious threat to the lives of
the couple. I.O. and A.A.G. shall ensure the safe passage to the couple till their
destination.
Consequently,
instant constitutional petition stands disposed of, accordingly.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Gulsher/PA