KARACHI, July 22: Justice Amir Hani Muslim of Sindh High Court has ordered quashment of proceedings pending before trial court in pursuant to an FIR registered under 17(3) EHO and 11-16, Zina Ordinance-1979 against Dr Ghulam Mustafa Solangi and his wife Dr Amnat Solangi lodged at police station Moro by Mir Mohammad Solangi, advocate and brother of Dr Amnat Solangi.
Dr Mustafa Solangi and Dr Amnat Solangi, working in Taluka Hospital Moro, District Naushero Feroze, got married on Nov 30, 2002, at Karachi in accordance with Muslim law.
Mir Solangi alleged in the FIR lodged on Sept 18, 2003, at PS Moro that on Sept 12, 2003, Dr Mustafa Solangi and others raided his house, abducted his sister Dr Amnat Solangi and also committed dacoity.
Iqbal Haider, advocate, submitted that in view of fact that Nikah of Dr Mustafa Solangi was performed with Dr Amnat Solangi and there is no dispute between the parties, therefore, proceedings under Section 11-16 of Zina Ordinance 1979 are untenable in law.
Justice Amir Hani Muslim, in his judgment observed: "With profound respect to Abdul Latif Channa, the learned counsel for the complainant, the statement of Dr Amnat Solangi in court and her Nikahnama belies story of the prosecution as narrated in the FIR. Dr Amnat Solangi is a material witness in the case who has not supported prosecution version. Admittedly, investigation reports submitted by the agency after thorough investigation cannot be overlooked in given circumstances of the case.
"The statement of Dr Amnat Solangi, Nikahnama, coupled with report of investigating authority, substantiate that prosecution story narrated in the FIR was concocted one and could not be believed.
"Once it has been proved that the applicant, Dr Mustafa Solangi, had lawfully married Dr Amnat Solangi, who is sui juris, there remains hardly any material to allow prosecution to continue proceedings against the applicants more so in the face of TPO (Investigation) report that the case has been falsely registered.
"This court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, under Section 561-A CrPC, has ample power to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that even if entire evidence is brought on record there is no likelihood that the applicants would be convicted, irrespective of the fact that applicants have not approached the trial court either under section 249-A or 265-K CrPC.
"On aforesaid reasoning, I am of firm view that even if entire evidence is brought on record, applicants would not be convicted for offences with which they are alleged to have been charged. In such a situation, continuance of criminal trial of applicants would be abuse of process of the court.
"I, therefore, allow this Cr. Miscellaneous application and quash proceedings pending before trial court in pursuant to FIR No. 110-2003 lodged by the complainant".-PPI