AMEER BAKHSH vs ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE Ss — 2022 PCrLJ 1188 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

AMEER BAKHSH VS ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE Ss. 22-a & 154---Justice of Peace, powers of---Information in cognizable cases---Scope---Petitioner assailed the dismissal of his application under S. 22-a, Cr.P.C.---Petitioner contended that respondent lady was his wife, she filed a suit for dissolution of marriage and got ex-parte decree, and on the next day of which, she contracted marriage with respondent without observing period of iddat, thus committed zina---Petitioner moved application before the Justice of Peace for the registration of FIR, but his application had been dismissed---Scope---Marriage of respondents could not be termed as a void (batil) marriage rather same would be an irregular (fasid) marriage---after holding that marriage of respondents was an irregular marriage, next point to be considered by the Court was to see as to whether such marriage amounted to commission of cognizable offence, as alleged by the petitioner---Under S. 4 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, the word 'married' qualified by the word 'validly' and a valid marriage was one which was effected abiding by all the Injunctions of Islam regarding Nikah, meaning thereby that any marriage which had been solemnized in an invalid manner, whether irregular or void, fell out of the phrase validly married as used in S. 4 of Ordinance, 1979---Such marriage could not exclude the sexual intercourse from the definition of 'Zina'---Situation had altogether been changed after the promulgation of Women (Criminal Laws amendment) act, 2006, by which word validly was consciously omitted by the Legislature---as per S. 4 of the Ordinance, 1979, a man and a woman are said to commit zina if they wilfully have sexual intercourse without being married to each other---Irregular marriage might have its own consequences under Muslim Personal Law but the same could not be treated as void and union of respondents, in consequence of Nihak, could not be regarded as a cognizable offence, as defined under S. 4 and punishable under S. 5 of the Ordinance, 1979, entailing penal consequences---No irregularity or illegality in the impugned order was found---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

AMEER BAKHSH vs ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE Ss — 2022 PCrLJ 1188 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 PCRLJ