In a significant legal development, the Lahore High Court has ruled in favor of Babar Azam, declaring the earlier decision to register a case against the national cricket star as null and void.
Court Sides with Babar Azam
The court accepted Babar Azam’s petition challenging the order issued by a Justice of the Peace, which had directed the registration of an FIR based on allegations made by a woman.
In its eight-page written verdict, Justice Asjad Javed Gharal highlighted that the order to file the case was not in accordance with the law and lacked proper investigation.
Key Observations in the Verdict
The court carefully reviewed arguments from both sides and examined the case record in detail. Some of the key points noted include:
- The allegations were found to be apparently lacking credibility
- An eight-year delay in raising the claims was termed unusual and questionable
- No substantial or supporting evidence was presented
- A claim of a promise of marriage alone did not justify such a delayed complaint
The court emphasized that legal proceedings must be grounded in clear evidence and timely action, both of which were missing in this case.
Background of the Case
The case originated from allegations by Hamiza Mukhtar, who claimed that Babar Azam had:
- Maintained a long-term relationship with her
- Promised marriage
- Caused her to become pregnant in 2015, followed by an abortion
- Received a significant amount of money from her
She further alleged that the cricketer later refused to marry her, prompting her to seek legal action.
Court Questions Initial FIR Order
The verdict also pointed out that the Justice of the Peace had approved the FIR request without conducting proper scrutiny, making the decision legally flawed.
This observation became a key factor in the High Court’s decision to overturn the earlier order.
A Turning Point
The ruling brings relief to Babar Azam, reinforcing the principle that legal actions must be backed by evidence and due process.
While the case had drawn significant public attention, the court’s decision now provides clarity and closure at least from a legal standpoint.
