1984 P Cr (PLP)

Bashir Ahmad Beg for the State. Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1983. This is a petition for quashment of proceedings in a fantastic case. The brief facts of the case are that one Muhammad Tufail whose son married one Ishrat Bibi soon after on fizzling out of the marriage lodged a complaint under section 406 420, P. P. C. before a learned Magistrate at Sheikhupura.

2. The allegation in the complaint was that the marriage did take place and the Nikah was performed by the Maulvi of the mosque. There after the wife Ishrat Bibi refused to live with the son of the complainant and even left the bridegroom's village. The persons who were roped in as accused in this case were the bride Ishrat Bibi, Noor Hussain, a maternal cousin of the bride, Nazir Muhammad, a maternal‑cousin and brother‑in‑law of the bride and Muhammad Hussain yet another maternal- cousin of the bride and to crown all the mother of the bride Mukhtaran Bibi appeared as accused No. 6 in this complaint case.

3. It appears that on receipt of this complaint the learned Magistrate examined the complainant Muhammad Tufail, Muhammad Shafi and Amanat Ali. In so far as Muhammad Shafi is concerned, he happened to be a chance, witness in the village. As regards Amanat Ali, it may be observed that he is ca shopkeeper of an adda.

4. Apart from the fact that the very version given in the complaint does not inspire confidence, the fact remains that the allegations if allowed to be tried as accusation will amount to abuse of the process of the Court as well as of the law. The allegation levelled in this case being that the petitioners are guilty of offence of appropriating the gifts given to the wife. 5 I have considered the over all circumstances and material sought to be relied upon. It appears to me that the whole story is farcical. I am rather shocked to conclude that the learned Magistrate does not appear to have read the complaint with open eyes and seen the whole matter in the light of the law, which governed it. Indeed, powers have been con ferred on the Magistrates to take cognizance of cases on private complaints in very vide terms but this power can never be made an abuse in itself. If the complaint would have been read with open eyes and the learned Magistrate would have judicially applied his mind, the process would not have been issued in this case to the respondents. The admitted gifts given to the wife, if utilised by her, can never give rise to a criminal liability of breach of trust. The position is so clear that no elaboration is called for in this case. The element of cheating is only the supplemental ground being urged to give strength to the allegation of misappropriation. The family dispute of this nature with these peculiar facts cannot be made basis for launching of criminal prosecution involving elderly persons and women folk of family, resulting from a rupture in a family union.

6. I would like to caution the learned Magistrates and hope that they would become aware of their responsibility, which they owe to the State as well as the citizens. It is bounden duty of Magistrates to read those complaints, which come before them with utmost care and caution and decide to issue the process to respondents after satisfying their judicial conscience. So in the facts of a given case if it appears that these essential elements are missing then this Court is under an obligation to quash those proceedings or set aside the same as this Court has ample powers to do so under section 561‑A, Cr., P. C. as well as in the revisional jurisdiction.

7. Therefore, in any view of the matter, I find that this is a fit case in which the abuse of the process of Court, as well as law should be put to an end. I would, therefore, accordingly quash the proceedings and acquit the accused. M. A. K. Proceedings quashed.