What's new

Court summons Imran in 'un-Islamic' marriage case

FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
18,063
Reaction score
12
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Superintendent Attock Jail has been directed to produce the PTI chief before the court on Sept 25
1695319216329.png

A local court in Islamabad on Thursday summoned the former prime minister and PTI Chairman, Imran Khan, on September 25 in a case pertaining to his alleged ‘un-Islamic’ marriage with Bushra Bibi, Express News reported.

Civil Judge Qudratullah, in an order to the Superintendent Attock Jail, directed the latter to ensure that the PTI chairman is produced before the court. The former PM is languishing in Attock jail after being convicted in Toshakhana case.

His arrest was made on August 5, 2023 from his Zaman Park residence in Lahore.

During the hearing, the judge would also examine the arguments of Imran’s counsel challenging the court’s jurisdiction in hearing the said case and has directed him to prepare arguments after he sought time from the court.

Read More: Plea against Imran’s nikah thrown out

It should be noted that Imran Khan is facing charges of allegedly getting into wedlock with his third wife on the time of her Iddat, an Islamic terminology which is considered to be a specified time period of waiting for a woman before marrying to someone else after the death of her spouse or getting divorced.

It may be recalled that the former prime minister in July challenged a trial court’s decision to accept a petition seeking criminal proceedings against him and his wife, Bushra Bibi, for cohabiting after their first nikah that allegedly took place without completion of the latter’s mandatory iddat period.

Qudratullah, a judicial magistrate in Islamabad, issued a nine-page detailed judgment on July 18 stating that the petition filed against the former premier with regards to his ‘illegal’ marriage was admissible. The judge also ordered Imran and his wife to appear in his court.

Read More: Imran, Bushra Bibi's Nikkah based on ‘fraud’: Aun Chaudhry

Earlier, on July 14, Islamabad Additional District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Azam Khan remanded the case to the judicial magistrate. He had also dismissed another civil court’s verdict declaring the plea challenging the legality of the marriage inadmissible.

Imran in his petition contended that the allegations contained in the private complaint do not constitute an offense within the ambit of Section 496 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). “Thus continuation of the trial would amount to the abuse of the process of law,” it added.

It said the most significant question of the offence falling within the mischief of Section 496 PPC was neither examined by the trial court nor by the revisional court.

“Moreover, the revisional court went a step ahead by holding that the issuance of notice to the respondent in criminal revision is not required. This part of the order vitiates the entire proceedings as no criminal revision can be decided without hearing the second party,” it added.
 
Superintendent Attock Jail has been directed to produce the PTI chief before the court on Sept 25
View attachment 955131
A local court in Islamabad on Thursday summoned the former prime minister and PTI Chairman, Imran Khan, on September 25 in a case pertaining to his alleged ‘un-Islamic’ marriage with Bushra Bibi, Express News reported.

Civil Judge Qudratullah, in an order to the Superintendent Attock Jail, directed the latter to ensure that the PTI chairman is produced before the court. The former PM is languishing in Attock jail after being convicted in Toshakhana case.

His arrest was made on August 5, 2023 from his Zaman Park residence in Lahore.

During the hearing, the judge would also examine the arguments of Imran’s counsel challenging the court’s jurisdiction in hearing the said case and has directed him to prepare arguments after he sought time from the court.

Read More: Plea against Imran’s nikah thrown out

It should be noted that Imran Khan is facing charges of allegedly getting into wedlock with his third wife on the time of her Iddat, an Islamic terminology which is considered to be a specified time period of waiting for a woman before marrying to someone else after the death of her spouse or getting divorced.

It may be recalled that the former prime minister in July challenged a trial court’s decision to accept a petition seeking criminal proceedings against him and his wife, Bushra Bibi, for cohabiting after their first nikah that allegedly took place without completion of the latter’s mandatory iddat period.

Qudratullah, a judicial magistrate in Islamabad, issued a nine-page detailed judgment on July 18 stating that the petition filed against the former premier with regards to his ‘illegal’ marriage was admissible. The judge also ordered Imran and his wife to appear in his court.

Read More: Imran, Bushra Bibi's Nikkah based on ‘fraud’: Aun Chaudhry

Earlier, on July 14, Islamabad Additional District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Azam Khan remanded the case to the judicial magistrate. He had also dismissed another civil court’s verdict declaring the plea challenging the legality of the marriage inadmissible.

Imran in his petition contended that the allegations contained in the private complaint do not constitute an offense within the ambit of Section 496 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). “Thus continuation of the trial would amount to the abuse of the process of law,” it added.

It said the most significant question of the offence falling within the mischief of Section 496 PPC was neither examined by the trial court nor by the revisional court.

“Moreover, the revisional court went a step ahead by holding that the issuance of notice to the respondent in criminal revision is not required. This part of the order vitiates the entire proceedings as no criminal revision can be decided without hearing the second party,” it added.
This appears to be a case of pure harassment. The said law Section 496 reads:
"496A.Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a woman.
Whoever takes or entices away any woman with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
496B.Fornication:
(1)A man and a woman not married to each other are said to commit fornication if they willfully have sexual intercourse with one another.
(2)Whoever commits fornication shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine not exceeding ten thousand rupees.
496C.Punishment for false accusation of fornication.
Whoever brings or levels or gives evidence of false charge of fornication against any person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine not exceeding ten thousand rupees.
Provided that a Presiding Officer of a Court dismissing a complaint under section 203C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and after providing the accused an opportunity to show cause if satisfied that an offence under this section has been committed shall not require any further proof and shall forthwith proceed to pass the sentence.".
How is there a crime when there was absolutely no criminal intent (they are married) and no room for 496B since nobody can produce evidence for such an act, even if it happened. This allegation is pure BS.
 

Back
Top Bottom