2026 P Cr. L J 477

 2026 P Cr. L J 477

[Sindh (Larkana Bench)]

Before Muhammad Saleem Jessar and Riazat Ali Sahar, JJ

Mst. SUMAIRA BIBI and another---Petitioners

Versus

The STATE and others---Respondents

Constitution Petition No. D-629 of 2025, decided on 8th August, 2025.

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----Ss. 364-A, 365-B, 452, 506-B, 148 & 149---Prevention of Trafficking

in Persons Act (XXXIV of 2018), S. 3---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.

199---Constitutional petition---Abducting to compel for marriage,

house trespass, criminal intimidation, rioting armed with deadly

weapons and trafficking in persons---Quashing of FIR---Petitioner

sought quashing of FIR registered against her husband for entering

into marriage after abducting her---Validity---Petitioner was star

witness of prosecution who in her statement recorded under S.161,

Cr.P.C., categorically denied any abduction, coercion or lack of

consent in her marriage to her husband---Petitioner affirmed that

she was a major and had contracted marriage at her own in

accordance with Shariat-e-Muhammadi---No material was placed on

record to contradict such voluntary statement of petitioner---

Investigating Officer did not produce any independent evidence,

ocular or circumstantial, to supportgrave accusations under Ss.365-

B, 364-A, 452, 148, 149, 506-B, P.P.C. and S.3 of Prevention of

Trafficking in Persons Act, 2018---Continuation of such proceedings

on the basis of a false narrative would amount to an abuse of the

process of law---First Information Report registered against husband

of petitioner was devoid of lawful foundation which was the

product of mala fides and had constituted manifest abuse of

process---High Court in such exceptional circumstances quashed the

FIR along with its subsequent proceedings---High Court restrained

respondents from causing any harassment to petitioners or their

families---High Court directed the authorities to ensure effective

protection to the lives of petitioners---Constitutional petition was

allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Uzair Ahmed Maniya v. Federation of Pakistan 2025

PCr.LJ 117; FIA v. Syed Hamid Ali Shah PLD 2023 SC 265; Rizwan Ellahi

v. Province of Punjab PLD 2024 Lah. 379; Shahabuddin Shah v. Deputy

District Officer 2007 CLC 700; Malik Gull Zaman v. Deputy

Commissioner 2022 CLC 1261; Mst. Naila Parveen v. The State PLD 2011 Lah. 37; Hajra Khatoon v. SHO PS Fateh Jang PLD 2005 Lah. 316;

Muhammad Ayub Khan v. Mst. Shehla Rasheed PLD 2010 Kar.131;

Hafiz Abdul Waheed v. Asma Jahangir PLD 2004 SC 219 and FIA

through Director General FIA v. Syed Hamid Ali Shah PLD 2023 SC 265

rel.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Alternate remedy---Principle---

Rule of alternate remedy is a rule of convenience and prudence

rather than one of compulsion---Ordinarily, availability of adequate

and efficacious statutory remedy persuades High Court to decline

exercise of its extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction under

Art.199 of the Constitution but such principle admits of recognized

exceptions.

Muhammad Safeer v. Muhammad Azam PLD 2024 SC 838 rel.

Qazi Sajid Ali M. Qureshi along with Petitioners.

Liaquat Ali Shar, Addl. Advocate General, Sindh along with S.I.P

Bashir Ahmed Khokhar and Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl. Prosecutor

General, Sindh for Respondents Nos. 1 to 5.

Ghulam Muhammad Barejo for Respondents Nos. 6 and 7.

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 8 to 12.

Date of hearing: 31st July, 2025.

JUDGMENT

RIAZAT ALI SAHAR, J.---Through this Constitutional Petition, the

petitioners submit that Petitioner No.1 was being compelled by her

parents to enter into a marriage against her will. Upon her refusal, she

was subjected to maltreatment and coercion, which ultimately

constrained her to leave her parental home. Thereafter, she

voluntarily approached Petitioner No.2, whom she liked, and both

contracted a marriage of their own free will on 18.01.2025, solemnised

in accordance with Shariat-e-Muhammadi and duly evidenced through

a registered Nikahnama and Marriage Certificate.

2. In retaliation, the private respondents began issuing threats of

dire consequences, including threats of honour killing ("Karo Kari"),

false implication in criminal proceedings, and subsequently managed

to have a false FIR No. 01/2025 of P.S. Airport, District Larkana, offence

punishable under sections 365, 364-A, 148, 149, 506/2 P.P.C and section

3 of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act, 2018, registered

against the petitioners under grave and baseless allegations, despite

their knowledge of the lawful marriage. Further aggravating the

situation, the respondents demolished the residential premises of Petitioner No.2, leaving his family without shelter. The police

authorities, instead of performing their constitutional duty, have

exhibited bias, declined to extend protection to the petitioners and

continue to subject them to harassment, intimidation and threats of

further false implication.

3. It is categorically asserted that Petitioner No.1 was neither

abducted nor forced into marriage; rather, she exercised her free will

and consent in choosing her life partner. The petitioners are presently

residing together in peace and harmony. In the absence of any

efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioners are constrained to

invoke the extra-ordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court

under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of

Pakistan, 1973, seeking the following reliefs : -

a) That, this Honourable court may be pleased to quash the false FIR

No. 01 of 2025 P.S Airport, District Larkana for offence under

sections 365-B, 364A, 452, 148, 149, 506/2 P.P.C, 03 of TIP Act 2018

registered by the respondent No. 06 or in alternate direct the

respondent Nos. 02 and 03 to record the statement of petitioner

No. 01 and submit such report before the concerned court of law

in view of statement of petitioner No.01.

b) That this Honorable Court may be pleased to restrain the

respondents Nos. 02 and 03 from taking any coercive action

against the petitioner No. 02 on the basis of above FIR.

c) That, this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct respondents

Nos.01 to 03 not to cause harassment, not to adopt any illegal

coercive method and not to issue threats of implicating both the

petitioners and family of petitioner No. 02, in false criminal

cases at instance of private respondents.

d) To direct the official respondent No. 4 to provide legal protection

to the lives and liberty of petitioners as their lives are in utmost

danger at the hands of private respondents and further direct

the private respondents to appear before this Honourable court

with directions to file their undertaking / affidavit that they will

not cause any harassment to the petitioners and family/relatives

of petitioner No. 2 in future so that petitioners can live their

lives with the peace, harmony, love and affection, which is their

fundamental right according to law of land.

e) To award costs of this petition to the petitioners.

f) Any other relief available under the circumstances may also be

granted to petitioners. . Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, S.I.P. Bashir

Ahmed Khokar of Police Station Airport, Larkana, recorded the

statement of Petitioner No.1 under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1898. A copy of the said statement has been duly placed on

the record. In her statement, Petitioner No.1 being star witness of

prosecution has categorically denied having been abducted or enticed

away by any individual, including Petitioner No.2. She has further

declared that the FIR lodged by her parents is entirely false and

baseless. In light of this unequivocal denial and the absence of any

evidence supporting the allegations made in the impugned FIR, the

petitioners seek the quashment of the said FIR in the interest of justice

and to prevent the abuse of legal process.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that private

respondents Nos. 6 and 7, being the father and paternal uncle of

Petitioner No.1, harbour the intent to murder both petitioners under

the pretext of so-called Karo Kari . He submitted that Petitioner No.1

has unequivocally denied the allegation of abduction and has affirmed

that she is of sound and mature age, fully competent to contract

marriage under the law. The learned counsel further argued that, in

practical terms, such FIR is often registered with mala fide intent,

merely to compel the appearance of the married couple before the

Court, during which time there exists a grave risk of honour-based

violence. He submitted that numerous cold-blooded murders have

historically been committed under the guise of such false and

fabricated FIRs. Moreover, the learned counsel emphasized that when

the alleged victim of abduction herself has categorically refuted the

claim and affirmed that no such offence has occurred, the very

foundation of the impugned FIR collapses, rendering its continuation a

clear abuse of process. With respect to the availability of an alternate

remedy, the learned counsel submitted that such remedy is not

efficacious in the circumstances of the present case, as there exists a

serious and imminent apprehension of honour killing should the

petitioners be compelled to appear before the trial court. Accordingly,

the petitioners seek the protection of this Court under its

constitutional jurisdiction.

6. Learned counsel for Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 filed a set of

documents by way of a statement dated 31.07.2025 and submitted that

the petitioners have an adequate remedy available before the trial

Court by moving an application under Section 265-K of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1898. In support of his submissions, learned

counsel placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in Muhammad

Uzair Ahmed Maniya v. Federation of Pakistan [2025 PCr.LJ 117],

wherein it was held that where a case has been duly challaned and is

pending adjudication, the appropriate course for an accused person is to seek relief from the trial Court. He further pointed out that in the

present case, the case has been challaned and is currently sub judice

before the Court of learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana

(trial Court). In these circumstances, he contended that the petitioners

ought to avail themselves of the statutory remedy by filing an

appropriate application before the trial Court. On these grounds, he

prayed for dismissal of instant constitutional petition.

7. Heard. Record Perused.

8. At the very outset, it is laentable that the pernicious custom of

honour-killing, locally known in Sindh as karo-kari , adventurous

continues to corrode the moral fabric and social harmony of our

society. Despite legislative reforms, this abhorrent practice remains

prevalent, particularly in rural districts of Sindh such as Jacobabad,

Kashmore, Shikarpur and Ghotki etc., where women s autonomous

choices in marriage are often met with violence. Credible data

collected by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan reveal that in

2024 alone at least 405 persons were slain across Pakistan in the name

of honour, with Sindh accounting for approximately 151 cases. Earlier

records indicate that in the first half of 2023, 123 persons fell victim to

karo-kari in Sindh, with Jacobabad district alone recording 19 victims.

The persistence of such killings underscores the grave risk faced by

couples like the petitioners, where familial disapproval is aggravated

by threats of lethal retribution.

9. In the present case, the record unequivocally demonstrates that

the investigation failed to substantiate the allegations in the impugned

FIR No. 01 of 2025 of P.S. Airport, District Larkana. Pursuant to our

direction, the statement of Petitioner No. 1 being star witness of

prosecution was recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., wherein she

categorically denied any abduction, coercion, or lack of consent in her

marriage to Petitioner No. 2, affirming that she was a major and had

contracted marriage of her own volition in accordance with Shariat-e-

Muhammadi. No material has been placed on record to contradict this

voluntary statement. The Investigating Officer has not produced any

independent evidence, ocular or circumstantial, to support the grave

accusations under Sections 365-B, 364-A, 452, 148, 149, 506-B, P.P.C. and

Section 3 of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act, 2018. In such

circumstances, the continuation of proceedings on the basis of a

demonstrably false narrative would amount to an abuse of the process

of law.

10. The Supreme Court in PLD 2023 SC 265 (FIA v. Syed Hamid Ali

Shah) authoritatively clarified that while Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., does

not empower the High Court to quash an FIR, Article 199 (1) (a) (ii) of

the Constitution enables this Court to judicially review executive acts, including the registration of an FIR and the conduct of investigation

and to declare such acts void if undertaken without lawful authority.

Where the allegations in an FIR do not, even prima facie, make out a

cognizable offence and the proceedings are initiated with mala fide

intent, the High Court is justified in quashing such FIR to secure the

ends of justice and prevent the abuse of process.

11. It is a well-settled proposition that the rule of alternate remedy

is a rule of convenience and prudence rather than one of compulsion.

While ordinarily, the availability of an adequate and efficacious

statutory remedy would persuade this Court to decline the exercise of

its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the

Constitution, such principle admits of recognized exceptions. The

Honourable Supreme Court in PLD 2024 SC 838 (Muhammad Safeer v.

Muhammad Azam) reiterated that where the impugned order or

action is palpably without jurisdiction, manifestly mala fide, coram

non judice, or otherwise void, the High Court may intervene

notwithstanding the existence of an alternate remedy. The Court

further clarified that adequate remedy connotes a remedy that is

efficacious, reachable, accessible, advantageous and expeditious; if

any of these attributes is absent, the bar does not operate.

12. Similarly, the Lahore High Court in PLD 2024 Lahore 379

(Rizwan Ellahi v. Province of Punjab) held that to oust a litigant from

invoking Article 199, the respondents must establish that the alternate

remedy is not only effective but also expeditious. An alternate remedy

that is less effective, unduly time-consuming, or necessitates recourse

to multiple forums cannot be deemed adequate. In such cases, the

High Court is competent to exercise its jurisdiction, particularly where

the grievance involves infringement of fundamental rights under

Articles 9 and 14.

13. This Court in the case of Shahabuddin Shah v. Deputy District

Officer (2007 CLC 700) has also observed that mere availability of an

alternate remedy would be no bar if the facts and circumstances of the

case so warrant, especially where the ends of justice would be

defeated by insisting on technical procedural routes. The principle was

similarly applied in the case of Malik Gull Zaman v. Deputy

Commissioner (2022 CLC 1261), where the Court entertained a

constitutional petition despite an available appellate remedy, holding

that the exception to the rule applies when the impugned action is

patently illegal or without jurisdiction.

14. In the present matter, while the respondents have argued that

the petitioners could approach the trial Court under Section 265-K,

Cr.P.C. such remedy cannot be termed efficacious in the peculiar

circumstances. The petitioners face imminent threats of karo-kari a reality substantiated by both regional statistics and established

societal patterns making their physical appearance before the trial

forum an act fraught with grave risk to life. Requiring the petitioners

to pursue such remedy would amount to compelling them to hazard

their lives for the sake of procedural formality, thereby rendering the

so-called alternate remedy illusory in substance. This Court, therefore,

justifiably assumes jurisdiction under Article 199 to quash the patently

mala fide proceedings, as endorsed by the principles enunciated in the

afore-cited precedents.

15. In the context of honour-based threats, the superior courts have

repeatedly intervened to protect the life, liberty, and dignity of

petitioners who are sui juris adults and have exercised their right to

marry by choice. In the case of Mst. Naila Parveen v. The State (PLD

2011 Lah. 37) and Mst. Hajra Khatoon v. SHO PS Fateh Jang (PLD 2005

Lah. 316), FIRs for abduction were quashed where alleged victim

herself affirmed the validity of her free will marriage, the Courts

holding that compelling such couples to face trial would unnecessarily

prolong their peril and infringe Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution.

In Muhammad Ayub Khan v. Mst. Shehla Rasheed (PLD 2010 Kar. 131),

this Court reiterated that an adult woman s choice of spouse is a

constitutionally protected right and parental disapproval does not

convert such marriage into a penal offence. The principle received the

imprimatur of the Honourable Supreme Court in Hafiz Abdul Waheed

v. Asma Jahangir (PLD 2004 SC 219), which declared in categorical

terms that an adult Muslim woman requires no Wali s consent for a

valid marriage, and that the State bears a duty to protect her from

private reprisals under the guise of honour.

16. Examining the present matter in light of these precedents, it is

manifest that the FIR was lodged with an ulterior motive, to compel

the petitioners appearance before forums where their safety could not

be guaranteed, thereby exposing them to the very real risk of karo-

kari. The apprehension of murder is not speculative but grounded in

the social realities and statistical prevalence of such killings in the

petitioners region. The Court cannot turn a blind eye to the likelihood

that continuation of the impugned FIR would facilitate, rather than

avert, irreparable harm to their lives and liberty.

17. The constitutional guarantee under Article 9 protects not only

the physical life but also the quality of life and personal autonomy,

and Article 14 enshrines the inviolability of human dignity. Any

criminal process initiated in violation of these guarantees, particularly

when weaponized to enforce patriarchal control over a woman s

marital choice, is repugnant to the rule of law. As held in the case of

F.I.A through Director General F.I.A v. Syed Hamid Ali Shah (PLD 2023 SC 265), this Court s jurisdiction under Article 199 is precisely intended

to prevent such abuse and to effectuate constitutional protections

without compelling citizens to endure protracted and hazardous

litigation.

18. Resultantly, in the result, we find that the impugned FIR No.01 of

2025, registered at P.S. Airport, District Larkana, is devoid of lawful

foundation, is the product of mala fides and constitutes a manifest

abuse of process. The same under exceptional circumstances was

accordingly quashed along with its subsequent proceedings vide

Sessions Case No.432 of 2025 re: The State v. Hubdar Ali Kalhoro and

others in terms of short order dated 31.07.2025. The respondents,

particularly Nos. 6 and 7, are restrained from causing any harassment

to the petitioners or their families, and the official respondents are

directed to ensure effective protection to the petitioners lives and

liberty. The Station House Officer concerned shall take immediate

preventive measures under the law to forestall any threat to the

petitioners safety.

19. Before parting with the judgment, it will be appropriate to

reproduce the caption from short order dated 31.07.2025, which reads

as under:

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners places on

record a copy of Birth Certificate of Petitioner No.1, issued by

Secretary U.C-I, Mithan, District Kemari, Karachi under the cover

of his statement dated 31.07.2025, taken on record. Per said

Certificate, the Date of Birth of petitioner No.1 as embodied

under it is 10.02.2004. He submits that petitioner No.1 being

adult, sui juris and aged about 25 years knows all the pros and

cons of her life, therefore, she is competent to enter into Nikah

with petitioner No.2.

Pursuant to directions issued in earlier part of the day, SIP Bashir

Ahmed Khokhar of Police Station, Airport, Larkana has recorded

statement of petitioner No.1 under section 161 Cr.P.C. and placed

it's copy on record; wherein petitioner No.1 has categorically

denied her abduction or enticing away by any one including

petitioner No.2 and stated that the FIR lodged by her parents is

all a lie, therefore, seeks its quashment.

Learned counsel for respondents Nos.5 and 6 also files set of

documents under the cover of his statement dated 31.07.2025,

taken on record and submits that petitioner may approach to

trial Court by filing application under section 265-K Cr.P.C. In

support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon case law

reported as Mohammad Uzair Ahmed Maniya v/s. Federation of Pakistan through Chairman/DAG FBR and 2 others (2025 PCr.LJ

117). He further submits that the case has been challaned and is

pending trial before learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge,

Larkana; hence, best course for the petitioners is to file

appropriate application before the said Court. He, therefore,

prays for dismissal of the petition.

Learned Additional Advocate General, Sindh as well as Additional

Prosecutor General, Sindh though oppose the petition; however,

when confronted with the statement of petitioner No.1 recorded

by the Investigating Officer in the Court today, wherein she has

denied her abduction or enticing away by any one including

petitioner No.2, have candidly conceded the petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

For the reasons to follow, instant petition is hereby allowed.

Consequently, the FIR and proceedings culminated from

impugned FIR, which are pending before the Court of IV-

Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana vide Sessions Case

No.432/2025, emanating from FIR No.01/2025, registered with

Police Station, Airport for offence under sections 365-B, 364-A,

452, 148, 149, 506/2 P.P.C, 03-TIP Act, 2018 are hereby quashed .

20. The above are the reasons to short order dated 31.07.2025,

whereby instant petition was allowed.

MH/S-52/Sindh Petition allowed.