1977 P Cr (PLP)

The brief facts leading to this quashment petition are that Akhtar respondent No. 2 filed a private complaint in the Court of EAC with powers of Magistrate 1st Class, Ahmed Pur East, District Bahawalpur, against the petitioners and four others, alleging that the accused were residing in the neighbourhood of his real brother and in connection with the business, the complainant has terms with the accused. One month prior to the lodging of the complaint, Suleman and Nizam petitioners along with Ghulam Rasul and Muhammad Suleman came to the complainant and asked him that his brother had sent far 500 empty bags. Gal Muhammad accused, who is allegedly fast friend of the complainant also supported the accused. Consequently, the complainant banned over the empty bags to the accused but the same did not reach the brother of the complainant. The accused also refused to pay the amount of Rs. 5,000 of the empty bags. The learned Magistrate after recording the statements at the prelimi nary stage of one Karimun and Muhammad Balal, summoned the petitioners and others under section 406/420, P. P. C. by his order dated 2‑8‑1975.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint was a false one, that it has been filed by a person who is interested in Din Muhammad, father of Mst. Zarina, wife of petitioner No. 2, who had left the house of petitioner No. 2 and the complaint has been lodged with a view to bring pressure upon the petitioners not to contest the dissolution of marriage case. It was also submitted that at any rate a bare reading of the complaint shows that it was at best a case of civil nature and criminal machinery has been moved with a view to bring pressure upon the petitioners. In the end it was submitted that the complainant is a fictitious person.

3. The quashment petition was admitted to a regular hearing on 17‑10‑1975 and notice was ordered to be issued to the State and the complainant, Akhtar for 4‑11‑1975. On this date the notices issued to the complainant were received back unnerved with a report of the police that no such person was residing in Channi Goth. Thereafter the notices were again sent through the police and at last the notices were sent through the Advocate who was appearing for the complainant in the Court of the Magistrate, who too has reported that he was not personally aware of the complainant and that he was not aware of his original address. Having failed to get the service of the complainant the case was heard in the presence of the learned counsel for the State.

4. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners have force. A bare reading of the complaint shows that ft was a matter of civil nature and if any recovery of the amount was involved, the complainant should have moved the proper forum. There is nothing on the record, which may indicate that the complainant had actually handed over the empty bags to the petitioners and their alleged co‑accused because no such receipt was ever obtained by the complainant. Moreover, falsity of the complaint is also evident from the fact that the address given by the complainant in the complaint is incorrect as stated by the police. The complaint thus appears to be a false one and to allow it to proceed would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

5. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is accepted and the proceed ings under section 366/420, P. P. C. pending against the petitioners and others in the Court of Magistrate 1st Class, Ahmadpur East, District Bahawalpur are hereby quashed. Proceedings quashed.