1988 P Cr (PLP)

This petition for quashment of proceedings under sections 4061 420/336 and 506, P.P.C. pending in the Court of Resident Magistrate, Sangla Hill and Criminal Miscellaneous No.10‑Q of 1988 for quashment of proceedings under sections 406 and 420/34, P.P.C pending in the Court of Syed Afzal Hussain Shah, Magistrate 1st Class, Joharabad, District Khushab. are being disposed of by this single order as these have arisen out of two complaints filed by Abdul Ghafur (respondent herein) and Muhammad Anwar respondent in 'Criminal Miscellaneous No.10‑Q 1988 against the petitioners and their co‑accused Hurmat Khan.

2. The allegations in the complaint, filed by Abdul Ghafur in the court of Magistrate First Class, Sangla Hill, are that the petitioners and their co‑accused Hurmat Khan used to visit his Ahrat shop at Sangla Hill for the purchase of Gurr and Shakkar, etc. and on that account he had acquaintance with them. About one and a half months prior to the institution of the complaint, they came to him and told him that they wanted to sell their land measuring two squares and he agreed to purchase it for Rs.3,70,

000. He paid Rs.1,85,000 as earnest money and it was agreed that the sale deed would be registered within a week, but they did not return within the stipulated period and he went in search for them. On 9‑7‑1987 at 10 a.m. he saw them going in a car towards Sangla Hill Town. He gave them a signal, on which they stopped the car then, an altercation ensued and many persons gathered there. In their presence, they admitted having received Rs.1,85,000 and told him that they would not transfer the land to him. Himmat Khan slapped him on the face and. fired at him with his pistol but he escaped unhurt. They hurled filthy abuses on him, given him threats of death and then went away.

3. In the complaint filed by Muhammad Anwar, it has been alleged that he got acquainted with the petitioners and their co‑accused Hurmat Khan through his friend Dost Muhammad. One month prior to the institution of the complaint, they came to his house with a young girl, aged 20, and told him that she was the daughter of Himmat (petitioner). His (Muhammad Anwar respondent's) mother desired the hand of that girl for him, to which they readily agreed. Four days later he gave them two pairs of clothes, a golden ring and Rs.4,000 in cash by way of gifts for the proposed bride. About one month Later, they again came to him and demanded Rs.5,000 which he, paid Later on, he learned that Himmat had no daughter at all.

4. Abdul Ghafur complainant is present in Court. I have asked him about the addresses of Himmat Khan, Muhammad Akram petitioners and their co‑accused Hurmat Khan but he states that he only knows this much that they are residents of Larkana and has no knowledge about their complete addresses. Muhammad Anwar complainant is also present. On inquiry he states that Himmat and Hurmat 'are sons of Kamal Khan and Muhammad Akram is son of Maqbool and they reside somewhere in the area of Province of Sind. He does not know their addresses. He further states that besides Rs.5,000 he had not paid anything.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that both the complaints have been maliciously filed at the instance of Ghulam Shabbir Sheikh. A.S.P., Jaranwala, to pressurise the petitioners, who are residents of Larkana, to abandon their claim to the land over which civil litigation is pending between them and the aforesaid A.S.P. and his father. To support the contention he has filed a certified copy of the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Larkana, in suit No.9 of 1987. Hurmat Khan is the plaintiff in the said suit while Ghulam Muhammad and his son Ghulam Shabbir figure as defendants 2 and 3 therein Annexure 'E' is a certified copy of the proceedings under section 107/151, Cr.P.C. against Himmat petitioner‑and his brother Hurmat (co‑accused in both the complaints) initiated at the instance of aforesaid Ghulam Muhammad Sheikh.

6. In view of the documents relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the fact that Abdul Ghafur respondent herein and Muhammad Anwar respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 10‑Q of 1988 could not tell the addresses of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the aforesaid respondents state that they are not in a position to defend these petitions.

7. It has already been 'mentioned` that respondents in both the petitions could not tell the addresses of the petitioners and their co‑accused Hurmat. It is interesting to note that in both the complaints the petitioners and their aforesaid co‑accused have been arrayed in the same sequence and their particulars are verbatim copy of each other. Their complete addresses have been given in both the complaints although the respondents do not know their addresses even now. This circumstance leads to the irresistible conclusion that their particulars, as mentioned in the complaints, were not known to the respondents and someone else had supplied the same to them. Muhammad Anwar, respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous No.10.Q of 1988, stated that besides Rs.5,000 he had not paid anything to the petitioners and their co‑accused whereas in the complaint it has been stated that two wearing apparels, a golden ring and Rs.4,000 in cash were given to the petitioners in the first instance. It is unbelievable that Abdul Ghafur respondent would pay a huge amount of Rs.1,85,000 without getting any receipt or writing in the form of agreement‑deed, etc. The facts and circumstances detailed above clearly show that the respondents in both the complaints have brought these false and frivolous complaints at the behest of someone else to cause harassment to the petitioners. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed and criminal proceedings pending in the Courts of Resident Magistrate, Sangla Hill, and Syed Afzal Hussain Shah, Magistrate First Class, Jauharabad, are hereby quashed. S.A./H‑68/L Proceedings quashed.