1999 P Cr (PLP)

The applicants through this criminal miscellaneous application have sought quashment of the proceedings in Criminal Case No.86 of 1997 pending before the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana arising out of direct complaint under section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with sections 337, 420, 504, 148 and 149, P.P.C.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that respondent Haji Khan Mangnejo filed a direct complaint stating therein that he owns and possess agricultural land admeasuring 3.20 Acres. According to him, he cultivated barley in the land and after harvesting, stored the same on a piece of his land. On 6-5-1997 he was present in the land alongwith P.Ws. Gullan and Ghulam Nabi when applicants/accused came with four donkey carts. They were aimed with fire-arms and hatchets and after issuing abuses to the respondent party took away the barley crop weighing about 45 maunds in their donkey carts. The respondent made complaints to the higher Authorities and ultimately lodged F.I.R. vide Crime No.52 of 1997 at Police Station Naudero which was registered under section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with sections 148, 149 and 504, P.P.C.

3. It is further, stated by the complainant that applicants/accused in collaboration with one Assad Dayo, S.H.O. Police Station, Naudero spoiled the case of respondent and disposed of the same under cancelled class.

4. The respondent filed direct complaint against the applicants/accused, which was brought on file by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana.

5. The applicants/accused moved application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court, but the same was dismissed on 1310-1998. -

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants/accused that the applicants are co-sharers with the respondent No.1 in the agricultural land from where the property was forcibly taken away; that the matter is of civil nature and case is outcome of enmity, therefore, the applicants/accused are entitled to the acquittal. The learned counsel for applicants has placed reliance on the cases of Akbar Ali .v. Dulian H. Dinshaw and 2 others 1971 SCMR 613, Shaikh Muhammad Taqi v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 963.

7. Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant has contended that the complaint was brought on file by the learned trial Court on 11-12-1997 and still two accused figuring in the complaint are not served; that no material has been placed on the record from which it could be deduced that charge framed in the case would be groundless and further continuance of the proceedings would be abuse of the process of the Court. He has further, submitted that the present application is premature, and is liable to be dismissed.

8. Learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh has adopted the arguments of the counsel for the respondent.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

10. Perusal of the record shows that respondent Haji Khan complained to the executive Authorities with regard to alleged incident but no heed was paid to it, therefore, he lodged the F.I.R. which was registered being Crime No.52 of 1997 at Police Station Naudero under section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with sections 148, 149 and 504, P.P.C. The case of respondent was spoiled by the Investigating Officer therefore, respondent filed direct complaint.

11. The learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana after examining the complainant under section 200, Cr.P.C. and holding preliminary enquiry brought the case on file and issued process against the applicants. The order of the learned trial Court shows that the two accused nominated in the complaint are not yet served.

12. It is well-settled that it is not the function of this Court in proceedings under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. to judge the innocence or guilt of an accused by way of deeper evaluation of evidence recorded against him.. The enquiry could only be considered to the question whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused or charge is groundless. If prima facie the offence had been committed the ordinary course of trial cannot be deflected through revisional or, inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

13. The upshot of the above discussion is that the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicants are misconceived as those amount to deeper/minute scrutiny of evidence which cannot be undertaken at this stage particularly when a no material has been placed on the record from which it could be said that if the charge is framed in the case it would be groundless.

14. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the applicants are, of no avail and help to them as the facts and circumstances of the cited cases are altogether different from the facts and circumstances of present case.

15. Consequently, the present application for quashment of proceedings is premature and is accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q./S-198/K Petition dismissed.