1976 P Cr (PLP)

Abbas Zia for Respondent No.

2. Date of hearing: 10th September 1975. By this application, filed under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C., the applicants seek quashment of the proceedings pending against them under section 107, Cr. P. C. in the Court of City Mukhtiarkar and F. C. M., Hyderabad.

2. Briefly narrated, the facts of this case are that on 7‑5‑1975, respon dent Ainuddin filed a complaint against all the nine applicants under sec tion 107, Cr. P. C. in the Court of learned Additional District Magistrate, Hyderabad who transferred the same for trial to the City Mukhtiarkar and F. C. M., Hyderabad. The allegations in the complaint were that civil litigation was pending between respondent Ainuddin and the applicant No. 1 in various Courts. Respondent Ainuddin had also filed an application under section 145, Cr. P. C. in respect of Shop No. A/1188 situated in Liaquat Colony, Hyderabad, which was pending decision. On 12‑4‑1975 all the nine applicants assembled before the said shop and started some construction therein. Respondent Ainuddin asked them not to unauthorizedly carry out construction work but the applicants instead of stopping the construction work advanced threats that if respondent Ainuddin interfered he shall have to face dire consequences Accordingly, Ainuddin went to the Market Police Station to lodge a report against the applicants but the police instead of taking down his complaint, registered a case under section 167, Cr. P. C. against him and one Saeed Ahmed. Again on 6‑5‑1975 when respondent Ainuddin was returning from the Court along with his witness Mohamed Haji Nasiruddin after attending the case under section 145, Cr. P. C., the applicants who were waiting for him near the disputed shop duly armed with knives and lathis, demanded that the said case should be withdrawn otherwise, he shall have to face dire con sequences. In the morning of 7‑5‑1975 also the applicants Nos. I to 3 armed with knives and other applicants armed with lathis reached the house of respondent Ainuddin and abused him.

3. The contentions of the learned counsel for the applicants are that firstly, the cognizance could not be taken on the basis of the complaint and the supporting statement of the respondent Ainuddin and his witness Mohamed Haji Nasiruddin as their statements were full of contradictions. Secondly, that the learned Mukhtiarkar and F. C. M., Hyderabad committed an illegality in straightaway issuing bailable warrants of arrest for all the appli cants. According to him, the Magistrate should have issued summons in the first instance.

4. I have heard the parties and p used the record. In his statement respondent Ainuddin has not stated an about the incident which took place on 6‑5‑1975. However, about the incident which occurred on 7‑5‑1975 he has stated that he was attacked with lathis and knives. His witness has stated that on 6‑5‑1975 respondent Ainuddin was belaboured with lathis and fists. It is strange that on 6th as well as on 7th May, 1975 respondent Ainuddin was attacked with knives and lathis by all the applicants but he did not receive even a single injury. If as many as nine applicants bad attacked him he could not escape without receiving injuries. Therefore, the story that on 6‑5‑1975 and 7‑5‑1975 respondent Ainuddin was attacked by all the applicants who were armed with knives and laths and he was given knife and laths blows does not seem to be correct. The third incident, which he narrated, occurred on 10‑4‑1975 when, according to him, the applicants were carrying out repairs in the shop. They were asked by him to stop the work but they threatened him of dire consequences. After this incident respondent Ainuddin went to the Police Station but the police instead of taking down his report registered a case against him under section 107, Cr. P. C. He was aggrieved of it, yet neither he made a complaint about the attitude of the police to the superior police authorities nor he filed a direct complaint of the incident in the Court up to 7‑5‑1975. This delay in filing of the complaint and the attitude of the respondent Ainuddin makes the occurrence of the incident dated 12‑4‑1975 doubtful. Over and above this, it does not seem likely that the police would have lodged a case against him when he had actually approached the police to lodge a complaint against the applicants unless on the basis of some investigation, the police had found that he was himself an aggressor and was making a false complaint against the applicants. If the said complaint made to the police had not been false the respondent Ainuddin would not have kept quiet till 7‑5‑1975 when for the first time he made a complaint to the Magistrate narrating this incident.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the State concedes that the alle gations are vague and the statements made by respondent Ainuddin and his witness Muhammad Haji Nasiruddin are full of contradictions and therefore the proceedings deserve to be quashed.

6. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Ainuddin has contend ed that the powers of the High Court under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. are very limited as the High Court can interfere only when a case of abuse of the process of Court was made out. In this case, according to him, the learned counsel for the applicants has not been able to substantiate that there was any abuse of process of Court. I am unable to agree with this contention because on the face of it, the statements made by respondent Ainuddin and his witness Muhammad Haji Naseeruddin are contradictory and the attitude of the respondent himself does not indicate that he has come to the Court a with clean bands. On the other hand, his attitude suggests that since a case had been lodged against him by the police at a time when he had himself tried to implicate the applicants in a case under section 107, Cr. P. C. there fore, out of vengeance he tried to implicate these applicants and filed a private complaint against them. As I have already observed, it seems highly unbelievable that on two occasions he was allegedly attacked with knives, and lathis by as many as nine applicants but on none of these two occasions he received any injury. If at all these incidents had taken place he was bound to have received some injuries. It goes to prove that the allegations against the applicants are false.

7. As a result of above discussion, I am of the view that the case filed by the respondent against the applicants is absolutely false. The proceedings are therefore quashed. Application accepted.