1987 PCr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 22nd April, 1986. This is a petition by Zahoorul Haq and his two brothers for quashment of proceedings in a complaint under sections 500/506, 295 A/298, 148, 149, P.P.C. and section 13 of Arms Ordinance, 1965, filed by Professor Javed Jiwan Mall, pending in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, Gujranwala. The petitioners are brothers of Mrs. Surrya Edwin, who alongwith petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 and others filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 238‑Q of 1985 for quashment of proceedings in a separate complaint which too, was, filed by Professor Javid Jiwan Mall, pending in the Court of City Magistrate, Gujranwala. That quashment petition has been decided by me by my order of even date. It is alleged by the petitioners that their sister Mrs. Surrya Edwin was married to Professor Javed Jiwan Mall on 25‑9‑1980. The relations between the parties became strained. Mrs. Surrya had to file a suit for dissolution of her marriage at Lahore. The marriage was dissolved on 9‑10 1985. As a result of that respondent No. 1 became inimical to Mrs. Suryya, her brothers and other family members. He filed number of suits against Mst. Surrya at Gujranwala. All these suits were ultimately transferred to Lahore and disposed of, except a petition for custody of children which is pending in the Court of Guardian Judge, Lahore. It is alleged that the complaint is frivolous. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are totally false. According to the petitioners, prior to the filing of the complaint the respondent filed an application before the S.S.P., Gujranwala, in which his stance was quite different. It is submitted that the complaint has been filed to harass the petitioners, especially their sister and to pressurise her to get the custody of children. Notice was issued to the respondent, but he did not turn up in spite of service. I, however, heard the A.A.‑G., who appeared on behalf of the State. It is established that the respondent filed various suits after Mrs. Suryya filed suit for dissolution of marriage. The respondent has filed complaints against the entire family of the petitioners. The object of these proceedings obviously is to harass the petitioners. I have already taken similar view in the connected petition (Criminal Miscellaneous 238/Q of 1985). Pam, therefore, of the view that continuance of the proceedings in the complaint would amount to abuse of process of the Court. The Courts cannot side with a party who wants to misuse the process of Court. They nave to protect the rights of law‑abiding citizens. For the foregoing reasons, I accept this petition and quash the proceedings in the complaint pending before the City Magistrate, Gujranwala. S.A./Z‑3/L Proceedings quashed.