1995SCMR1139 (PLP)

Fazal Ilahi Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th December, 1993. FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is prayed for in this case against the judgment of a learned Judge of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad, dated 6‑11‑199, whereby, the respondent' ‑ Cr. Misc. Petition for quashment of criminal case F.I.R. No. 206. dated 19‑12‑1992 of Police Station, Baffa under section 406/34, P.P.C., registered at the instance of the petitioner, was allowed. Mst. Mehrun Nisa petitioner made a complaint to the Ilaqa Magistrate on 1‑9‑1992 against Zainulabidin Mst. Gul Nisa his wife, Ghulam Murtaza and Sultan Salahuddin his sons and Mst. Raftaj Bibi widow of Muhammad Arshad alleging that the petitioner was married to Muhammad Arshad on 8‑4‑1983 but she was turned out by her ,husband of his house somewhere in April, 1984. That Muhammad Arshad later on married Mst. Raftaj Bibi respondent. That since 1984 petitioner is residing in the house of her parents. That her entire dowry consisting of ornaments, clothes and other , household articles valuing about Rs.2,00,000 were lying in the house of her husband. That on the death of Muhammad Arshad somewhere in March, 1991 she demanded the dowry from the respondents which they denied. She reported the matter where after the respondents agreed before a Jirga to return the dowry to the petitioner but later resiled from their undertaking. The Ilaqa Magistrate sent the complaint to the local police under section 202, Cr.P.C. On receipt of the report of the local police registration of the case against the respondents under section 406/506/34, P.P.C. was ordered. Respondents challenged the criminal proceedings initiated by the order of the Ilaqa Magistrate in the High Court through the aforementioned petition for quashment. It was alleged that Muhammad Arshad after his marriage with the petitioner was residing separately from the respondents. That subsequently he divorced the petitioner through a deed dated 25‑4‑1987. That throughout the lifetime of Muhammad Arshad, petitioner did not claim any dowry. That even if there is any claim regarding the dowry for the same `she can approach the Court of competent jurisdiction, the dispute being of the civil nature. That the criminal Courts had no jurisdiction to proceed against the respondents. That the criminal proceedings amount to abuse of the process of Court of law. The learned High Court in this background held that the proceeding initiated by the learned Magistrate on the facts and circumstances of the case are not good to advance the interest of justice rather it amount to abuse of process of criminal Court the dispute being of civil nature. The proceeding were, therefore, quashed vide judgment dated 11‑6‑1993 against which leave to appeal is prayed for. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned High Court. Apparently the dispute is of civil nature for which a proper forum has been provided for resolving such dispute and for seeking redress by an aggrieved person. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the observation made by the learned High Court with regard to the factum of divorce was uncalled for and that such observation may prejudice the petitioner's case specially as she had denied the divorce. The apprehension is misconceived as no such evidence has been led and even otherwise such observations in criminal proceeding are not of binding nature. Such question can be gone into and decided by the forum of competent jurisdiction under the law. With these observations their petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./M‑2095/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????? Leave refused.