P L D 1967 Supreme Court 354 (PLP)

CORNELIUS, C. J.‑These two petitions seek leave to appeal against orders under section 561‑A, Criminal Procedure Code, made by the learned Chief Justice of the West Pakistan High Court, quashing proceedings in two separate complaints by one Haq Nawaz against, in the first case, Muhammad Afzal, Ghazanfar Ali, Abdul Rehman and Nek Muhammad and in the second case, Muhammad Afzal and Abdul Rehman aforesaid together with Subedar Sakhi Muhammad. The parties belong to Jhelum District. Haq Nawaz is serving as a Police Constable in Karachi. In both cases, the acts complained of were alleged to have been committed in Karachi. In the first case, it was alleged that by false representation, the accused persons induced the complainant to give them Rs. 500 on the pretext that the money was needed by his father in Jhelum and they would reach it to him. There was no such need and the money was never paid. The act of cheating was allegedly committed on the 21st July 1965 and the complaint under sections 406 and 420, P. P. C., was lodged on the 12th March 1966. In between these dates, on the 17th August 1965, the petitioner's father filed in Jhelum a complaint of theft, mischief and criminal trespass against the same four persons, which was dismissed on the 21st October 1965, on the ground that the matters in dispute were of a civil nature. The second complaint by Haq Nawaz alleged that on the 20th March 1966, that is, some eight days after the filing of the first complaint, the three accused persons, in an attempt to force Haq Nawaz to withdraw his earlier complaint, committed house?trespass and resorted to intimidation by threats, at his residence in Karachi. The grounds on which both proceedings under these complaints have been quashed are as follows:‑ (1) The complaint in respect of the sum of Rs. 500 was a counter‑blast to the failure of the father's complaint in Jhelum; it was `unbelievable' that while the `criminal litigation' was pending at Jhelum, Haq Nawaz would have paid over Rs. 500 to the accused persons; there was long delay between the discovery of having been cheated and the filing of the complaint; and (2) the accused persons could not have learnt so quickly, i.e., between the 12th and the 20th March 1966, about the filing of the first complaint on the former date, so as to react by commission of house‑trespass and criminal intimidation on the latter date; there was no good reason why they should have gone to Karachi to force Haq Nawaz to withdraw the complaint; a certificate had been produced before the High Court showing that on the 20th March 1966, Subedar Sakhi Muhammad was present at a meeting of a Union Council in Jhelum. On these grounds, the conclusion was reached that the complaints were mere counter‑blasts, filed for the purpose of harassing the accused persons. The Advocate‑General, West Pakistan appeared for the State before the High Court and is recorded as having supported the petition for quashment. The cases being at the complaint stage, the State was not concerned as a party and the latter intervention could be thought to have an element of officiousness. In effect, the learned Chief Justice has come to the conclusion that the allegations of cheating and of house‑trespass and intimidation are totally false. Reasons have been advanced which, it is urged, are open to criticism on the points of sufficiency and even accuracy. For instance, the complaint at Jhelum was not pending when the alleged act of cheating was committed, and the date of the latter act was still to be established by evidence. The reasons for disbelieving the allegations of house‑trespass and intimidation have a quality of superficiality and include acceptance of a document, in proof of alibi, which could only be evaluated correctly in a trial. Quashment of proceedings at so early a stage gives an unfortunate impression of stiffing of criminal prosecutions, by exercise of an extraordinary power which is given. for the dispensation of complete justice, in the forms provided by law. It is necessary that these cases should be examined further, to ensure that the course of even‑handed justice has not been prejudiced. We accordingly grant leave to appeal as prayed. The papers of these cases will be got ready with the greatest expedition, concise statements being dispensed with and the appeals will be set down for hearing before the commencement of the summer vacation. K. B. A. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.