1989 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Hussain for the State. Date of hearing: 10th May, 1988. The quashment of proceedings is being sought by the petitioners in a complaint filed against them by Ghulam Hassan son of Ghulam Muhammad, Caste Qasab, before the Illaqa Magistrate, Mianwali, under section 420/406/506, P.P.C.

2. A notice was issued to the complainant respondent for 26‑3‑1988. He was served in person on 16‑3‑1988. Post Card (Regd. A.D.) was sent to him for today as well. There is no reason to believe that the same would not have reached him. He is not present.

3. Learned counsel for the State is available. The petition for quashment is being decided in the absence of the respondent complainant.

4. The facts stated in the complaint are that the complainant had gone to cattle fair at Mianwali a month before 8‑1‑1986, to sell a pair of oxen, where the petitioners had met him and told him that if the pair of the oxen is sold at Faisalabad, they would fetch better price. They prevailed upon the complainant and he handed over the pair of oxen to the petitioners who took the same to Faisalabad. The petitioners met the complainant a week thereafter at cattle fair at Mianwali. They refused to make any payment to him. In fact they denied to have taken away the cattle and when complainant insisted, he was threatened by the petitioners by bringing out a pistol with dire consequences.

5. The quashment of proceedings is being sought by the petitioners‑ on the grounds that petitioner No. l had divorced his wife. Mst. Farhat Begum, daughter of Muhammad Ishaq and he had got the complaint filed against the petitioners, to avenge the insult of his daughter having been divorced. It is stated that Ihsanul Haq, petitioner No. l is M.Sc. (Agr.) and is serving as a Research Officer in Agricultural University, Faisalabad, while Zahurul Haq the other petitioner, is real brother of Ehsanul Haq and Muhammad Ramzan, the third petitioner is married to their sister. It is submitted that petitioners 2 and 3 are businessmen of status and own jewellery shops in Faisalabad. It is argued that no time and of occurrence is mentioned in the complaint. It is submitted that keeping in view the status and education of the petitioners, it cannot be assumed even that they would have gone to Mianwali from Faisalabad for purchasing cattle. It is argued that all the facts mentioned in the complaint are mere concoction.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the State has expressed inability to support the facts mentioned in the complaint. In fact, he has not seriously opposed the grant of this petition. ,

7. As noted above, one of the petitioners, is a Research Officer and holds M.Sc. (Agr.) Degree. The other two petitioners, who are closely related to him, are businessmen and own jewellery shops. It is improbable to believe that persons of such status would go to a different district for purchasing ox. Apart from this, it! A is difficult to imagine that the complainant who was not known to the petitioners, would have readily agreed to hand over the pair of oxen to them and wait for price, to be paid a week thereafter. It looks strange that the petitioners would have again' gone to Mianwali after committing such an offence. The circumstances do indicate that it is a case of malicious prosecution. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the proceedings being conducted in the complaint filed by Ghulam Hassan son of Ghulam Muhammad, caste Butcher (Qasab) against the petitioners, under section 420/406/506, P.P.C. are quashed. SA./E‑14/L????? Proceedings quashed.