1979 P Cr (PLP)

Saeed Khan Ghori for the State. Muhammad Khan Niazi for Respondent No.

2. Date of hearing : 21st January, 1979. by the present application under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. Mst. Masroor Sultana, the applicant, who is, for the sake of convenience referred to 'as the accused, seeks quashment of proceedings instituted against her by respondent Hakim Ali. hereinafter referred to as the complainant, in a case under section 406/420, P. P. C. in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Larkana. I have heard Mr. Qamar Muhammad Khan, Advocate for the applicant/accused, Mr. Muhammad Khan Niazi, Advocate for the respondent/ complainant sad Mr. Abdul Saeed Khan Ghori, Advocate for the State.

2. The complainant lodged a complaint in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Larkana stating that he had friendly relations with the father of the accused. Hb further alleged that the accused used to visit his house and on a day she had pressed need for money whereupon he paid a sum of Rs. 500 to her as a loan. The accused is also stated to have executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant. The complaint recites that in spite of demands the borrowed amount had not been repaid by the accused. In the last sentence of the complaint it has also been added that the accused had fraudulently and dishonestly misappropriated Rs.5,000 which was kept as "amanat" with the accused. A promissory note was also appended to the complaint.

3. Mr. Qamar Muhammad Khan has urged before me that on a reading of the complaint it is very plain that the complainant is seeking to enforce a money claim which should normally be entertained in a Civil Court rather than a Criminal Court. This argument is, however, without prejudice to the contention that has been raised in the application made in this Court for quashment, which contention is to the effect that the complainant had waned to marry the accused but on such offer being repelled the complainant has now filed this complaint with a view to coerce the accused to marry him.

4. On a reading of the complaint it is patent that the transaction involved a loan and a refusal to repay the same. I, by no means, state, that this transaction of loan is a genuine transaction because that is not a point requiring consideration in these proceedings but on a reading of the complaint it is patent that alleged civil liability is sought to be enforced. The learned State counsel has also supported such contention of Mr. Qamar Muhammad Khan. Mr. Muhammad Khan Niazi, the learned counsel for the respondent has, however, urged that ab initio the accused had no intention of repaying the amount and for such reason the transaction would amount to cheating. There is nothing in the complaint which might support such an averment nor are any circumstances indicated which may go to show that the accused, if she had borrowed the money, had never intended to repay the amount.

5. Mr. Muhammad Khan Niazi has, however, contended before me that since no evidence has ban recorded the present stage was immature for exercise of powers by this Court under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. I am conscious of the limitation of the powers of this Court in the matter of quashment of pending proceedings but I am not aware of any rule which forbids the exercise of such powers in suitable cases, if it can be shown that the proceedings are abuse of judicial powers or the exercise of such powers is necessary to achieve the ends of justice. In the present case the entire evidence is disclosed by the complaint and the promissory note appended thereto. As stated above, the facts as stated in the, complaint not make out any criminal offence and therefore even the present stage would be a proper stage for exercise of jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.

6. In the result the proceedings which are pending before the sub. Divisional Magistrate, Larkana, on a complaint filed by respondent Hakim Al; against the applicant Mat. Masroor Sultana are quashed. Proceedings quashment.