y ~ Beton Cah Jedge dvticis! Magy rate KHAWAR FARID MANEKA ....... VS «0. IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC. Dated: 03.02.2024 1 i AT ULLAH LEARNED SENI CIVIL JUDGE-II/JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE EMPOWERED |: -ISLAMABAD. Private Complaint No.. of 7096/2023 COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 496 & 496(B)/34 PPC Khawar Farid Maneka son of Mian Ghulam Muhammad Khan Maneka, resident of House No.03, Street No.02, Bani Gala, Islamabad. creer COMPLAINANT. Versus 1. Imran Khan Niazi son of Ikram Ullah Khan Niaz, resident of Bani Gala Islamabad. 2. Mst. Bushra Bibi daughter of Riaz Khan Watto, resident of . we Bani Gala, Islamabad. 3. The State. ses RESPONDENTS Date of Institution: 25.11.2023 Date of Decision: 03.02.2024. JUDGMENT The criminal law in this matter was’ set to motion by one Khawar Farid Maneka son of Mian Ghulam Muhammad Khan (complainant), through filing of a private complaint, wherein the Bop. 0? Ialamanad Scanned with CamScannera KHAWAR FARID MANEKA ........ VS wens IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC. Dated: 03.02.2024 information of commission of offence by the respondents have been furnished. The brief facts as per complaint are that the complainant entered into wedlock with respondent No.02 in the year 1989; that the relation between the spouses was quite calm and peaceful till the intrusion of respondent No.01 through sister of respondent No.02 during Islamabad Dharna; that the complainant believes that sister of respondent No.02 who resides in UAE has strong connection with Jewish Lobby; that respondent No.01 entered in complainant's home / domestic life under the garb of “Peeri Mureedi” and started visiting the complainant's house frequently, even in his absence; that it is important to mention that respondent No.01 used to remain present in the complainant house for hours which was not only undesirable but unethical and against the norms of Islamic Society that too under the guise of Spiritual healings; that with the passage of time respondent No.01 started intrusion in complainant’s marital life, although he was admonished by the complainant and also ousted him in disgraceful manner from complainant’s premises but he proved to be a shameless person; that it is significant to mention that once complainant came to his house at unusual time and found Zulfigar Bukhari alone in his bedroom, who also kept on Scanned with CamScannerKHAWAR FARID MANEKA .. » IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC. Dated: 03.02.2024 visiting respondent No.02 along with respondent No.01 for most of the times which act on their part was highly Un-Islamic and against the norms and trends of Islamic Society; that thereafter respondent No.02 started visiting the house of respondent No.01 in Bani Gala without permission of complainant, although complainant tried to stop her by force and during which hard words and even abuses were also exchanged but of no avail; that respondent No.02 used to remain in residence of respondent No.01 for multiple hours on the pretext of spiritual feelings and matter did not end on visitation only rather respondent No.01 used to call respondent No.02 at late hours; that the complainant visualize that respondent No.02 keep different cell phones and Sims which were provided by Farah Gogi at the instance of respondent No.01; that although, complainant protested very strongly on every occasions as conduct of both respondents was unbearable and against the Islamic standard and way of life; that whenever complainant tried to restrain respondent No.02, she used to come up with a cover up story of spiritualism; that both of them developed illicit relations with each other before their so called Nikah which fact was reported to complainant by his servant namely Muhammad Latif; that complainant tried his level eden 2M ordia: Men. aig Fam tuaraod Scanned with CamScanner? KHAWAR FARID MANEKA ....... VS weseeee IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC. Dated: 03.02.2024 best to reconcile situation and to bring respondent No.02 back in her normal life for the sake of her family, family name and children who were adults and having their own status in society but in vain; that ultimately the complainant divorced respondent No.02 half heartedly on 14.11.2017; that as it was in the mind of complainant to reconcile before February 2018 through his family members but premature Nikah during “Iddah” between respondent No.01 & 02 frustrated his plans of reconciliation; that after almost a month silence, complainant was forced by Farah Gogi to change the date of divorce as per desire of respondent No.01 & 02 as both were having their own plans, respondent No.01 & 02 got married to each other on 01.01.2018 during “Iddah” and as per respondent No.02 above said date was a result of prophecy; that above said nikah and marriage ceremony was neither legal nor Islamic as it was solemnized without observing “Iddah” period and both of them established illicit relations with each other; that moreover the marriage ceremony was fraudulent on the pretext of some prophecy, however, respondent No.02 kept on lying about it throughout; that above said fact of marriage during “Iddat” came on surface and both of lem again contracted Nikah in February 2018 through Mufti fey A =~ NRATULLAN femaat Cova , Jucicial Mage trate ast isamaned ~ Scanned with CamScannerKHAWAR FARID MANEKA eerreee VS veseeee IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC. Dated: 03.02.2024 5 Saeed which fact is sufficient to establish that Nikah coupled with marriage ceremony was fraudulent and not lawful; that respondent No.01 has ruined complainant's entire life, stigmatized the complainant and his family just to achieve his unethical and immoral objects through intrusion in complainant peaceful marital life and hook the complainant's wife which act is totally Un-Islamic, unethical and betrayal of teaching of Islam; that heinous offence of fornication has been committed by respondent No.01 & 02 and drama of marriage was stage on 01.01.2018 knowing that “Iddah” period of respondent No.02 was not complete, yet they went through a fraudulent marriage ceremony which was not at all lawful, hence, both the respondents have committed a heinous offence within the meaning of section 496 / 496(B) PPC and complainant being aggrieved person has preferred the instant complaint; that both the respondents dishonestly and with fraudulent intention went to the ceremony of being married knowing that they were not thereby lawfully married on 01.01.2018 due to non completion of “Iddat” period, hence, this complaint and both of them remained in illicit relations with each other from Islamabad Dharna and onward; that both the respondents committed fornication in Scanned with CamScanner. IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC. Dated: 03.02.2024 KHAWAR FARID MANEKA ....... VS 6 Islamabad and went through the above said fraudulent marriage in Lahore and as a result of that marriage both started living in Islamabad, thus consequences of fraudulent marriage ensued in Bani Gala, Islamabad, hence, this court has the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter; that complainant avoided to report the matter by way of private complaint just to save his family from being ridiculed but since all these facts have come into the knowledge of everyone, hence, complainant has knocked at the door of this court for redressal of his grievances, as his family life, dignity, honour and respect has been ruined by both the respondents. 02. The complaint in hand was filed on 25.11.2023, the cursory statement of complainant was recorded on the same date in contemplation of section 200 Cr. PC. The case was posted for 28.11.2023 for recording statement of witnesses. Statement of Hafiz Muhammad Saeed son of Muhammad Hanif, Muhammad Aun Saqlain son of Allah Bakhsh were recorded as CW-02 & 03 respectively. The case was adjourned for 02.12.2023 for recording remaining evidence of complainant. On 02.12.2023, request for adjournment was made on the part of learned counsel for complainant which was acceded and the case was fixed for Roo ea Scanned with CamScannerd KHAWAR FARID MANEKA aac VS acon IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC, Dated: 03.02.2024 6 Islamabad and went through the above said fraudulent marriage in Lahore and as a result of that marriage both started living In Islamabad, thus consequences of fraudulent marriage ensued In Bani Gala, Islamabad, hence, this court has the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter; that complainant avoided to report the matter by way of private complaint just to save his family from being ridiculed but since all these facts have come into the knowledge of everyone, hence, complainant has knocked at the door of this court for redressal of his grievances, as his family life, dignity, honour and respect has been ruined by both the respondents, 02, The complaint in hand was filed on 25,11.2023, the cursory statement of complainant was recorded on the same date in contemplation of section 200 Cr, PC, The case was posted for 28.11.2023 for recording statement of witnesses, Statement of Hafiz Muhammad Saeed son of Muhammad Hanif, Muhammad Aun Saqlain son of Allah Bakhsh were recorded as CW-02 & 03 respectively, The case was adjourned for 02,12.2023 for recording remaining evidence of complainant, On 02,12,2023, request for adjournment was made on the part of learned counsel for complainant which was acceded and the case was fixed for di Scanned with CamScannerKHAWAR FARID MANEKA «+4 VS «eee IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC, Dated: 03.02.2024 7 05.12.2023. On the said date, the statement of Muhammad Latif, the stated house servant of complainant was recorded as CW-04, The matter was fixed for 08.12.2023 for remaining evidence of the complainant as well as preliminary arguments. However, again the matter was adjourned for 11.12.2023 on the request of learned counsel for complainant for reasons recorded in the order ibid. On 11.12.2023, the learned counsel for complainant adduced certain documentary evidence and also advanced his arguments over the maintainability of instant complaint within the meaning of section 203 Cr. PC. The inquiry as required under section 202 Cr. PC was conducted by the court and pursuant to said inquiry the statement of as many as three witnesses referred to above were recorded beside the statement of complainant. 03. The complaint was adjudged to be proceedable by this court through order dated 11.12.2023, for reasons recorded in detail in the said order and as such notice in contemplation of section 204 Cr. PC was issued in the name of respondents for 14.12.2023. As respondent No.01 was in jail, therefore, this court has ordered that he will be connected through Skype and the matter was adjourned for 14.12.2023. “ ow, ae ol 4 q 3" - aoRaTULLAK pester Cad aoe / dati Mage ate akon estar otnd ieee op q Scanned with CamScannerRAWAR BARID MANERA jy. VB joe IMRAN RUAN NIABE ETC, Dated: 03,02,2024 a wm, On 14.12.2023, Muhammad Usman Riaz Gill advocate Pur in appearance on behalf of respondent No.O2 and submitted his power of attorney, Similarly, Shakeel Mughal advocate submitted power of attorney on behalf of respondent No.01, However, neither respondent No.02 appeared nor respondent No.01 could be connected through Skype due to network problem, Exemption request on behalf of respondent No.02 was made which was granted and the case was adjourned for 18.12.2023, Needless to mention that on the said date |e, 14.12.2023 the copies of complaint and all the annexure appended thereto were provided to learned counsel for respondents, Their signatures were obtained on margin of order sheets in this regard. On 18.12.2023, again request for exemption on the part of respondent No,02 was made, which was granted. Similarly, though production order of respondent No,01 was issued yet the Superintendent Central Prison Adyala Jail Rawalpindi has expressed his Inability to produce the respondent No.01 due to security reasons while basing his report on the information of Security Agencies, Resultantly, the order for holding trial of respondents in terms of proviso to Sub Section-1 of Section 352 Cr. PC read with Rule-III in Part-A of Chapter-I, .) oA Bg,” 0 % Q@\ORATULLAK (Gems Coos age | dosical May ane jwamanns Scanned with CamScannerKHAWAR FARID MANEKA .VS « IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC. Dated: 03.02.2024 a Volume-III of Lahore High Court Rules and Orders (as applicable) was passed on 18.12.2023. It was clarified In that the trial shall be an open one, wherein access must be given to learned counsel for the parties, family members of the respondents and adequate number of public as well as media personnel to attend the Proceedings. 05, The approval of the Federal Government for conduct of trial in jail along with NOC from Superintendent Jail in this regard was sought through proper channel. The Federal Government has been pleased to accord approval and similarly the Superintendent Jail also expressed his commitment to provide adequate space at Jail along with no objection for holding the trial. Intimation in this regard was sent to Hon'ble Islamabad High Court as required by High Court Rules and Orders. The matter was adjourned. The copies were provided to the respondents on 02.01.2024, their signatures were obtained on margin of order sheet in this respect. The case was fixed for framing of formal charge on 10.01.2024, however, on the said date the charge could not be framed due to absence of respondent No.02, on application of learned counsel for respondent No.02 she was exempted from ersonal appearance on the day for reasons recorded in order e7 awe WAAATULLAH [Cin Judge, Jveicia, ty Gad temevag Scanned with CamScannerKHAWAR FARID MANEKA IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC. Dated: 03.02.2024 10 dated 10.01.2024. The case was again fixed for framing of formal charge on 15.01.2024. 06. It is apt to mention that the order dated 11.12.2023 Passed by this court (whereby the complaint was adjudged as Proceedable within the meaning of Section 203 Cr. PC and summoning of respondents in view of section 204 Cr. PC), was assailed by the respondents on variety of grounds including non- maintainability of the complaint, lack of jurisdiction of the court in the matter etc, through separate revision petitions filed on 09.01.2024 (by respondent No.01) and 11.01.2024 (by respondent No.02), before the court of Sessions, however, both the petitions were dismissed vide order dated 09.01.2024 & 11.01.2024 respectively. The order of Learned Additional Sessions Judge referred to above was assailed before Hon'ble Islamabad High Court, Islamabad through writ petition No.171 of 2024 by respondent No.02, however, the said writ petition too was dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2024. 07. The charge for an offence under section 496 PPC was framed against respondents on 16.01.2024 while the charge for an offence under section 496(B) PPC was omitted to be framed as requirement of section 203 Cr. PC were not met by the 4 “WM ae 7 UDRATULLAH Beales Co Juege Lect Hag, Iniamanad Scanned with CamScannerKHAWAR FARID MANEKA w IMRAN KHAN NIAZE BTC, Dated: 03.02.2024 complainant. The charge was agaln read over to respondent No.02 and her signature was obtained on margin of order sheet as a token of understanding the charge, Both the respondents denied the charge and claimed trial, hence, the complainant was required to lead evidence in support of allegations In the complaint, 08. Keeping In view the facts and circumstances of the Case, as described In the complaint, this court Is of the opinion that the following points needs determination: = (i) Whether the respondents have gone through the marriage ceremony fraudulently and dishonestly knowing that they are not lawfully married to each other, (ii) Whether the respondents have developed relation with each other prior to their Nikah on 01.01.2018 and were in frequent visit to each other houses and meeting therein for hours in isolation In the absence of complainant. (ili) Whether the complainant / prosecution proved Its case against the respondents beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts, A DoW Kalba unge | Jusnelah Maye tal emer ON aaisamannd Scanned with CamScannerKHAWAR FARID MANEKA ....... VS ws. IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC. Dated: 03.02.2024 12 09. The complainant recorded statement of as many as four (04) witnesses in support of the allegations in the complaint. GIST OF PROSECUTION / COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE 10. PW-01; The complainant Khawar Farid Maneka, the ex-husband of respondent No.02 entered into witness box as PW- 01. In his testimony before the court recorded on oath he reiterated and seconded all the allegations leveled by him against the respondents. He categorically stated that he was married to respondent No.02 back in the year 1989, they had a very Ideal and peaceful family life until intrusion of respondent No.01 into their matrimonial life during Islamabad Dharna. It has further been stated by the complainant that both the respondents used to visit each other houses situated at Bani Gala, Islamabad very frequently. They were In habit of meeting each other In Isolation for hours and that too in his absence. He kept on narrating that the respondents had developed illicit relations with each other prior to solemnization of Nikah on 01.01.2018 and thus both the respondents have not only ruined his family life but has also stigmatized his entire family. It was also deposed by the complainant that due to unbearable conduct of respondents he was compelled to pronounce divorce upon respondent No.02 on Pemies Cap suse; sorciat apr nig \Eaul Istamand Scanned with CamScannerKHAWAR FARID MANEKA ». IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC. Dated: 03.02.2024 13 14% of November 2017. The divorce deed was produced as Ex. PD. He had the intention to reconcile his differences with respondent No.02 but such plan of reconciliation could not be materialized due to Nikah of respondents during “Iddah period” of respondent No.02. He has termed the marriage between the respondents as fraudulent and unlawful. 1k The PW-01 was subjected to lengthy cross examination by learned counsel for respondents, however, nothing material could be brought on record through his cross examination touching material aspect of the issue. The fact that he has Pronounced divorce upon the respondent No.02 on 14.11.2017 vide divorce Deed Ex. PD and her solemnization of Nikah on 01.01.2018 prior to expiration of Iddat period were reiterated even during cross examination by PW-01. He was confronted with a video clip contained in USB Ex. PW-3/D1, wherein he has spoken about the character of both the respondents, declaring them as most pious and dignified person, though he admitted the giving of such interview, however, also came up with explanation that at the time of such interview the respondent No.02 was not divorced by him and that such admiration of her character was on the basis of her being wife of complainant. Pr, ag: ™ STULLAN, Oh gate / saci age oS feo icamanns Scanned with CamScannerKHAWAR FARID MANEKA wesses VS srere IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC, Dated: 03.02.2024 14 12, PW-02; Muhammad Saeed Khan son of Muhammad Hanif Khan testified before the court as PW-02, PW-02 has recited Nikah of respondents. He has testifled to the effect that he was a close buddy of respondent No.01 and member of his core committee. He was contacted by respondent No.01 for recitation of Nikah with Bushra Bibl on 01.01.2018, At his instance, the Pw- 02 accompanied him and recited Nikah of respondents on 01,01,2018, Prior to solemnization of Nikah he inquired from respondent No,02 regarding her eligibility to enter into Nikah as per Sharia and she through a lady, Introducing as herself as sister of respondent No,02, affirmed that all the formalities and requirements as per Sharia are fulfilled and she Is able to enter Into Nikah with respondent No.02. He has also deposed that in fact this Nikah was never a valid one because as per his Information respondent No.02 was undergoing her “Iddah” by then and this drama of Nikah was staged on the basis of prophecy, as respondent No.02 has made respondent No.01 to believe that he will become Prime Minister If Nikah was performed with her on 01.01.2018, The PW-02 further stated that as the first nikah was during Iddat period, therefore, he was asked by respondent No.01 to perform second Nikah after expiration of Ya 7" aoe ILLAH Te Scanned with CamScannerKHAWAR FARID MANEKA «0... VS esses IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC. Dated: 03.02.2024 15 Iddat Period of respondent No.02 and he performed the second Nikah of the respondents. 13. The witness faced lengthy cross examination and even during said cross examination he reaffirmed his stance regarding solemnization of Nikah by respondents during “Iddat period” of respondent No.02. He also reiterated that the second Nikah was also performed by him between the respondents after expiration Of Iddat period of respondent No.02 in February 2018. He came up with a statement even during his cross-examination that the Marriage between the parties was not valid due to respondent No.02 being undergoing “Iddat” at that time. The “Nikahnama” was produced as Ex. PF & Ex. PF/1 and the witness has verified his signature on “Nikahkhwa” Ex. PF & Ex. PF/1. The learned counsel for respondent confronted the witness with a video clip contained in USB as Ex.PW-3/D1 wherein he has expressed his opinion regarding status of a woman regarding her iddat period and asked as to whether he stands by such opinion. The witness in response to such question stated that though the statement of a lady is consider as reliable, however, if the facts and circumstances of the matter warrants otherwise, then it needs to be corroborated by other modes as well. Scanned with CamScannerKHAWAR FARID MANEKA ....... VS ..se0e. IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC. Dated: 03.02.2024 16 14. PW-03, PW-03 is Muhammad Aun Saqlain son of Allah Bakhsh. His testimony is to the effect that he was political as well as personal secretary to respondent No.01 and due to such portfolio he was very close to respondent No.01. He has to look after all the affairs of respondent No.01 both personal and Political. The respondent No.01 divorced Reham Khan in the year 2015 at the instance of respondent No.02 through an Email. He used to take respondent No.01 to the house of respondent No.02 for spiritual healings. On 31.12.2017 he was asked by respondent No.01 that on 01.01.2018 he has to solemnize Nikah with respondent No.02. He was surprised by such statement of respondent No.01 because respondent No.02 was a married lady, however, the respondent No.01 informed that she has already been divorced. PW-02 testified that the Nikah was performed on 01.01.2018 in his presence, he was one of marginal witnesses to the Nikah. The PW-02 has endorsed his signature over the Nikahnama Ex. PF & E. PF/1. PW-02 has further stated that second Nikah of respondents was recited by PW-02, in his presence in the month of February 2018, after expiration of iddat period of respondent No.02. Ir ‘B, aml] A TULLAH (beats Heh Nag creat agate lamatag Scanned with CamScannerKHAWAR FARID MANEKA IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC. Dated: 03.02.2024 17 15. Despite lengthy cross examination conducted by learned counsel for respondents the PW-03 remained firmed in his stance and nothing of significance, capable of vanishing the liability could be brought on record through his cross examination. He reiterated that his statement is not the outcome of any pressure or coercion from any quarter whatsoever and it is also not because of his differences with respondent No.01. 16. PW-04; PW-04 is Muhammad Latif, the house servant of complainant. In his deposition before the court the said witness has testified that he has been serving at Complainant’s House for last 35 years. As he is in their service since long, therefore, no one observes “Parda” from him. That the complainant was serving in Customs and he used to serve at different districts. The respondent No.01 started visiting complainant's house situated at Bani Gala, Islamabad since 2015. The frequency of his visits accelerated during the year 2016/2017. The witness has further narrated that respondent No.01 used to visit complainant's house in his absence and will remain there in isolation with respondent No.02 for hours. He used to visit the respondent No.02 at night time. The respondent No.02 was in habit to switch off her mobile during visit of respondent No.01 and during this time the vas acl TULLAH Data / Aut Magy aig auamabed Scanned with CamScanner———————— TTS KHAWAR FARID MANEKA ....... VS sess IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC, Dated: 03.02.2024 18 complainant had to contact her through my phone. One day when he entered the room of respondent No,02 It was observed that both the respondents were committing “zina”, The witness has further stated that at many occasions he admonished the respondent No.01 on the direction of complainant and prohibited him to visit, however, he did not refrain. 17. The evidence of PW-04 also remained unshaken over the material aspect like visiting of respondent No.01 to the house of complainant, his meeting with respondent No.02 In Isolation and in absence of complainant. 18. The complainant closed his evidence, The closure of evidence was followed by statement of respondents under section 342 Cr. PC. Giving them an opportunity to explain their position regarding the facts brought on record by the complainant, connecting them with commission of offence with which they are charged. Both the respondents pleaded their Innocence and also wished to lead evidence In defense, however, they falled to highlight before the court the relevancy of intended evidence in defense and also did not offer themselves to record statement under section 340(2) Cr. PC, hence, their request for leading eg: pe" BRI ULLAN eae bc My ‘vate Scanned with CamScannerKHAWAR FARID MANEKA... » IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC, Dated: 03,02,2024 19 defense evidence was considered to be a delaying tactics, therefore, not allowed, 19. Arguments of learned counsel for parties heard, 20. Raja Rizwan Abbasi advocate, the learned counsel for complainant submitted that the complainant has proved Its case against the respondents through his reliable and confidence inspiring evidence. He pointed out that the allegations regarding unlawful and fraudulent marriage, knowingly gone through by the respondents inter-se on 01.01.2018 stands established through the testimony of PW-01 to PW-03, He added that that the divorce deed produced before the court as Ex. PD would manifest that respondent No.02 was divorced by the complainant on 14.11.2017, this fact brought on record through a documentary evidence (divorce deed) and seconded by on oath statement of PW-01 could not be rebutted at all. He further submitted that the date of solemnization of fraudulent marriage on 01.01.2018 is admitted and at that time the respondent No.02 has not completed her iddat period of 90 days In view of her divorce on 14,11.2017, rather the marriage was solemnized after 48 days of her divorce by the complainant. He pointed out that under the law and “Shariah”, the complainant has a right to have “Rujuh” 2x PP OV TULLAH fee nc oy v4 Scanned with CamScannerKHAWAR FARID MANEKA «0. NS scssiss: IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC, Dated: 03.02.2024 20 to his wife, the respondent No.02 prior to expiration of her Iddat period but he was deprived of such right by the respondents through their fraudulent and unlawful Nikah during Iddat period on 01.01.2018 and as such this act on their part ensued unlawful loss to the complainant. He also submitted that though the respondents have been denying the fact of solemnization of Nikah during Iddat period, however, such denial is misstatement on their part because if the respondent No.02 was not undergoing Iddat during her first Nikah then what was the need of solemnization of second Nikah in February 2018. The solemnization of second Nikah has been proved through the statements of PW-02 & PW-03 (Nikahkhwa and witness to the Nikah respectively). The learned counsel for complainant also Pointed out that the fact of respondent's objectionable interaction with each other under the guise of spiritual healings has also attained the status of an admitted fact because during the statement of accused the fact of interaction with each other has not been denied by either of the respondents, he pointed out, though they assert that it was mere for spiritual purposes. The learned counsel pointed out that under the norms of Islam and in our social fabric the relations between a male and a female not pe” o& vs ILLAH a - lean iar ate Scanned with CamScannerMHAWAR PARID MANEKA ....... VS 0 IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC, Dated: 03.02.2024 a4 falling in prohibitory degree to each other is consider as unethical and Un-Islamic, particularly in this case, where the facts and circumstances proves that their relations was not restricted only to spiritual healings, He while explaining his plea submitted that it Is very rear that a mother of five children will get rid of her husband, with whom she has spent 28 years in cordial and harmonious atmosphere, but If It so happens, then the Ill will, element of dishonesty and fraud cannot be ruled out. The learned counsel for complainant also submitted that there Is no evidence ON record to suggest that the respondent No.02 was abnormal In her menstruation courses rather the complainant, her ex- husband, with whom she has spent 28 years has stated categorically that she was absolutely normal In this respect. This fact further finds support from the fact that the respondent went for solemnization of second Nikah, In the month of February 2018, considering their first Nikah dated 01.01.2018 as Invalid and unlawful, The learned counsel submitted that the consistent and reliable evidence adduced before the court proves beyond doubt that the respondents have gone through an unlawful marriage ceremony, fraudulently and knowingly on 01.01.2018, when respondent No.02 was undergoing her Iddat Perlod and that gp 9 Scanned with CamScannerKHAWAR FARID MANEKA ....... VS «+.s0. IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC, Dated: 03.02.2024 22 such haste on their part was triggered by their pre-marriage objectionable relations with each other, it is, therefore, submitted that they may be convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 496 PPC as per law. 21. On the other hand, Mr. Salman Akram Raja & Usman Riaz Gill advocates, the learned counsel for respondents submitted that bare reading of the complaint and evidence statements shows that no offence under section 496-B PPC is made out. It was contended that one of the basic elements of the offence under section 496 PPC is the mens rea, which in the instant case, is dishonesty and fraudulent intention, whereas no such assertion has been made, either in the complaint or in the testimonies of witnesses. Learned counsel for respondents took the court through definition of dishonesty as provided in section 24 PPC as well as fraud in section 25 PPC to substantiate that the referred ingredients are missing in the contents of complaint and evidence adduced by complainant. It was argued that if a court has to take cognizance and issue summons in a private complaint under section 200 Cr. PC, it has to keep in view section 190 as well as 198 Cr. PC and it Is to be seen that complaint discloses offence and that complaint has to be made by some aggrieved i AoW a Marry Scanned with CamScannerKHAWAR FARID MANEKA ...... VS sesseee IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC, Dated: 03.02.2024 23 person. Learned counsel further argued that in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case reported as Allah Dad Vs Mukhtar and another (1992 SCMR 1273), the time period for iddat has been provided as thirty-nine (39) days, which in this case is attracted inasmuch as Nikah was solemnized after about forty-eight (48) days, even if the divorce date of 14.11.2017 is accepted as correct. The learned counsel further submitted that complaint has been filed with a delay of almost 06 years, which in itself, goes on to show that it is based on malafide and is tainted with ulterior motives, as one of the petitioner is a leading political figure of the country. Learned counsel submitted that Nikah was solemnized at Lahore, hence, this court has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter. It was also contended that even otherwise section 496 PPC is only attracted, where one of the Parties to the marriage, had deceived the order through fraud and dishonest intention and no third person can take advantage of the same. It is, therefore, requested that the accused / respondents may be acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Wo ae“ Rian Dente | dE} Mage trate Scanned with CamScannerKHAWAR FARID MANEKA , IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC. Dated: 03.02.2024 24 22. In light of valuable assistance rendered at the bar by learned counsel for Parties, I have carefully perused the record as well as the relevant provision of law, 33. The perusal of record would reveal that the complainant has filed instant complaint under section 496 & 496(B) PPC. However, the charge against the respondents was framed by the court to the extent of section 496 PPC while the other section of law i.e. 496(B) was omitted in light of section 227 Cr. PC for reasons recorded in detail in my order dated 16.01.2024. 24. Prior to scrutinizing the evidence made available before court by the complainant, it would be in the fitness of the matter to highlight in brief the allegations against the respondents. 25. The gist of accusation of commission of offence is contained in Para No.03, 04, 06, 08 & 09 of the complaint Ex. PA, the said Paras are reproduced herein as a matter of ready reference: - PARA NO.03 That with the passage of time, respondent No.01__started intrusion in complainant's marital life, although he was admonished by wa ROMA TULLAH aye | atc Wage Ves tag amand Scanned with CamScannerKHAWAR FARID MANEKA we VS vis IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC, Dated: 03,02,2024 LO\ Z4 9 BOM \i \7e fefeene = QUDRATULLAH peter datee | issn ug ret ‘Pam car annt Scanned with CamScannerKHAWAR FARID MANEKA os VS veeeee IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC, Dated: 03.02.2024 26 healings and matter did not end on visitation we ‘olera 1% of Islamic Norms under the garb of spiritual i mn restr. re: bw :o__com. with cove Si Spiritualis: level illicit relation with each other before their so led _Nii ich fe by servant Latif. PARA NO.06 7 vi ah ri Scanned with CamScannerKHAWAR FARID MANEKA ....... VS +++ IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC. Dated: 03.02.2024 27 was solemnized without observing “Iddah” eriod and both of them establi: illicit relations with each other, moreover, marriage ceremony was also fraudulent on the pretext of some prophecy, however, respondent No.02_ kept on lying about it throughout. PARA NO.08 That respondent No.O1 ha: in entire life, stigmatized the complainant_and_his_ family just _to achieve his unethical and immoral jects through intrusion _in_complainan: peaceful __marital__life__and__hook __ the complainant wife which act is totally Un- Islamic, unethical and betrayal of teaching of Islam: PARA NO. That heinous offence of fornication has been committed by respondent No.01 & 02 and drama of mi was stage on 01.01.2018 that “Iddah” period of respondent Scanned with CamScannerIMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC, Dated: 03.02.2024 KHAWAR FARID MANEKA 496(B) PPC and complainant being aggrieved person has preferred the instant complaint. 26. As the charge against the respondents has been framed under section 496 PPC, therefore, in order to understand the Constituting elements of an offence under above section of law, 1 consider it significant to reproduce the said section of law as well. “496, Marriage ceremony fraudulently gone through without lawful marriage: Whoever, dishonestly or with a fraudulent shall be Sable to fine”. MZ, 3c REAM 0% * QUDRATULLAH — Scanned with CamScannerKHAWAR FARID MANEKA ..., VS + IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC, Dated: 03.02.2024 29 27. As per section of law supra, the following are the Constituting elements of an offence prescribed therein I.e. to say: \). Going through marrlage ceremony which Is not lawful; AND li), The person solemnizing such marriage must know that he is not lawfully married; AND ili). Such solemnization of marriage must have taken place dishonestly or with a fraudulent intention, 28. In order to determine the status of marriage ceremony / Nikah solemnized by respondents, It is expedient to ascertain definition of the marriage, kinds of marriage, Iddah perlod, the status of a wife qua her relation with the husband during Iddat period, divorce, different modes of Talaq and effectiveness of the divorce in light of provision of law as well as precedent of Hon’ble Superior Courts. a. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE; Marriage (Nikah) is defined to be a contract which has for Its object the procreation and legalization of children (Para 250 of Muhammadan Law by D.F. Mulla hereinafter referred to as the Muhammadan Law); b). KINDS _OF MARRIAGE PARA 253 OF THE MUHAMMADAN LAW; Cc OM 61 hl aN tnd Ho 8 saa Scanned with CamScannerKHAWAR FARID MANEKA ... . IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC. Dated: 03.02.2024 A marriage may be valid (Sahih), or irregular (Fasid), or void from the beginning (Batil). | c). MARRIAGE WITH A WOMEN UNDERGOING IDDAT PARA 257: A marriage with a woman before completion of her iddat is irregular, not void. qd). DIFFERENT MODES OF TALAQ: A talaq may be effected in any of the following ways; q) Talaq ahsan, this consists of a single pronouncement of divorce made during a tuhr (period between menstruations) followed by the abstinence from sexual intercourse for the period of Iddat (section 257). When the marriage has not been consummated, a talaq in the ahsan from may be pronounced even if the wife is in her menstruation. When the wife has passed the age for periods of menstruation the requirement of declaration during a tuhr is inapplicable; furthermore, this requirement only applies to an oral divorce and not a divorce in writing. Pom Cornus ® Scanned with CamScannerG KHAWAR FARID MANEKA «+05 VS cssseee IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC. Dated: 03.02.2024 31 (2) Talaq ahsan, this consists of three pronouncements made during successive tuhrs, no intercourse taking place during any of the three tuhrs. (3) Talaq-ul-bidaat or talaq-i-badai, _ this consists of --- (i) three pronouncements made during a single tuhr either in one sentence, e.g., “I divorce thee thrice,” or in separate sentences; e.g. “I divorce thee, I divorce three, I divorce thee” or (ii) a single pronouncement made during a tuhr clearly indicating an intention irrevocable to dissolve the marriage, e.g., “I divorce three irrevocably”. 29, EFFECTIVENESS OF DIVORCE _PRONOUNCED THROUGH ANY OF THE MODES REFERRED TO ABOVE. The statutory provisions contained in Section 7 (3) of Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961 reads, “save as provided in sub-section (5) a talaq unless revoked earlier, expressly or otherwise, shall not be effective until the expiration of ninety days from the day on which notice under _sub- ection is delivered to the Chairma ) WP». RO WU zc) é eer yn ten Mae ee 8 hasan Scanned with CamScannerKHAWAR PARED MANBIA ii VB se IMAAM KHAN TARE BIG, Dated) 09,02,9094 v 30, The same prineipla has bean augmented by Hon'ble Superior Court In number of Ite esteemed Judgments, Rellance in this regard can be placed on the following Judgmantas » (a) Mat, Naveada Kausar and others Ve Muazzamn Khan and others reported as 2016 CLC 100; (b) Muhammad Rafique Ve Additional District & Sessions Judge Sialkot and others reportad as 2022 YLM 2067; (c) Muhammad Afzal Khan Ve Chatman Arbitration Council and another reported a6 2016 CLE 1125, ob It needs to be clarified harain that as par dictum of Hon'ble Superior Courts the notice to the Arbitration Counell 16 Not mandatory and talag will become effective aven in absence of service of such notice after expiry of 00 days, 32. Verses of Holy Quran about “Iddah” of a divoread wifa, Command of Allah in the Holy Quran about iddat of a divorced wife, Surah AleBaqarah Ayat No.220 with English & Urdu Translations Aah Sh Ge aly oF ON Go Dy 458A Capel ct ella o - pO a ACA wa Scanned with CamScanner| KHAWAR FARID MANEKA ....... VS seseee IMRAN KHAN NIAZI ETC, Dated: 03.02.2024 33 als Sway Gal Sats S81 oly db Go K of Sa as Gee Daas Gay'adl Sele gall de Gay Ly Ii) Y "SS Saje ily “Divorced women remain in waiting for three periods, and it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs if they believe in Allah and the Last Day. And J their husbands have more right to take them back in this [period] if they want reconciliation. And due to the wives is similar to what is expected of them, according to what is reasonable. But the men have a degree over them [in responsibility and authority]. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.” sie Su DS Gael a) OHSS 284 SS Ula GS IS Use Gl USE Ully GI gl" 2g Co ygl 8) a US Nay Ge Say 2S ON ot al 9 GALES al AS Gad HS) BANS 38 ate Gad 8 8 ate Gl gag 8 35) On HS) Gla SB 5 5 ott US UF JI) UH CHS) IIS Chal 09 8) Gat Shea 52 NS Ut 39) oop USES OO) ee Bt ul Gls Neco Wy eae wae dh yy) os uals Surah Al-Baqarah Ayat No.230 with English & Urdu “230. Then if he divorces (for the third time), she will not be lawful for him until she marries some husband Cc 4 ane data gira, Adamanad Scanned with CamScannerAL Dated: 03.02.2024 34 other than him. But if he (the latter) also divorces her, in such a case there shall be no sin on both of them (the former husband and the wife) if they return (once more to the wedlock), provided both of them (now) think that they would be able to observe the limits set by Allah. And these are the limits (prescribed) by Allah which He explains to those who have knowledge.” Suvtes se Sol $5323 Db (ie Gs) Sot Bl" tA BK SS he ES yaxt 33) oS 05 S Sle Sy i De 2 ate GY) US IS $22 23 Db Ge (a Less) 95 8) Sas 5) AB) oss) oy SIE AB AS 33 (Ge OF os! ot ABE al aan oy (GN) S GS ULE 2 Use Sob He ule Gils (Use eS ually Ale 95 Gade Gn aye (02,8 oie) GS atl a 8 US Sy ees oy Surah Talaq Ayah No.06 Gb 5 Sled V5 S385 E88 bye GA isu Gi Gases ie ple 1 is eS OS Gered Ayub 5 a5 ey 2885 IGT TAIN CASE SI es SAL AS HS Hy Gls 6 y 530 AN (Ux Ge hi) S Use re 5" dem SI ys) 93 5 GNSS A AS 5 8 SES oN os) 9 Choos be EMSS ah 0y SI serpy oe EIS OSG ptis AS SU oe (Ge OH ES EH) 33) -p Goal Sot S$ UI F UAL AIS — OS Scanned with CamScanner