2002 P Cr (PLP)

Through this petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of case F.I.R. No.257 of 2000 under sections 454/382, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Saddar, District Sialkot.

2. Allegations levelled in the F.I.R. against the petitioner are that she alongwith her two sons, namely Luqmari Umer and Usman Umar and others entered into house of the complainant and took away the household articles by loading the same on a tractor trolley bearing No.7992/SRC. On these allegations the said F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant against the petitioner, her sons and others.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the F.I.R. has been registered with mala fide and ulterior motive as the petitioner had done to take her dowry article; from; the house of complainant employment who is her ex‑husband and she had taken with her two children,, namely, Luqman Umer and Usman Umer. It is further contended that the complainant himself informed that she may come and take her dowry articles. Learned counsel further contends that in fact the complainant was aggrieved or the order passed in favour of the petitioner by the Court for handing over custody of the children to the petitioner. It is also contended that the complainant is an Advocate and has manoeuvred to register this false case against the petitioner and others in order to tease and pressurize the petitioner to withdraw from the litigation pending between the parties. Learned counsel further contends that this Court can exercise jurisdiction under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. for quashment of the F.I.R. instead of directing the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy by way of filing application under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. because the petitioner is a lady and she will have to suffer a lot if the proceedings before the trial Court are not quashed. Lastly it is prayed that the F.LR. be quashed being registered with mala fide.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this writ petition on the grounds that the mala fides are not proved and relies upon PLD 1975 SC

154. It is further contended by him that factual controversies are involved in this case which cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction. He further contends that the challan has been submitted in the Court and at this stage quashment will amount to strangulation to the prosecution. Learned State Counsel has very frankly conceded that the case seems to be mala fide.

5. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, the complainant and the State. Case has been registered by ex‑husband of the petitioner against her and civil litigation is also pending between the parties. Annoyance of the complainant due to order of handing over custody of the children cannot be ignored at this stage. Even it has been mentioned by the complainant himself that litigation is pending between the parties. Petitioner who is ex‑wife of the complainant has given an explanation that the petitioner was informed by the complainant himself that she may come and take away her dowry articles and she arranged a tractor trolley and with the help of her relatives including two sons came to the spot i.e. house of her ex‑husband. There is no dispute that the petitioner is ex‑wife of the complainant and there is also no doubt that she left her dowry articles in the house of the complainant and taking of the dowry articles in the manner is also a circumstance in favour of the petitioner that she was offered by the complainant to take away dowry articles. The commission of offence in such‑like circumstances seems to be doubtful and I am of the view that the complainant‑has manoeuvred to get registered a case against the petitioner, who has been divorced it, 1992 and she was fighting for custody of her children. After the petitioner succeeded in getting custody of the children complainant got registered this case against her. Petitioner has already suffered losses during the litigation and also due to the registration of abovesaid F.I.R. and even if she has alternate remedy by way of filing application under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. but I am inclined to exercise inherent powers under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. due to the peculiar circumstances of this: case and direct quashment of proceedings pending before the trial Court in the abovesaid F. I. R. Accordingly the petition is accepted and the impugned F.I.R. is quashed. H.B.T./P‑56/L Petition accepted.