1968 P Cr (PLP)

FAZLE‑AKBAR, J.‑The appellant Fakir Hussain is being prosecuted for an offence under section 456, la. P. C. in the Court of a Magistrate at Lahore. The circumstances in which he is prosecuted, may be shortly stated. Fakir Hussain made a complaint to the Police as a result of which two persons, Ghulam Muhammad and Abdur Rashid, were challaned under section 457/380, P. P. C. upon the allegations that they had wrongfully entered into a fiat belonging to the appellant and committed theft therefrom. After some evidence was recorded by the trial Magistrate, he decided to summon this appellant Fakir Hussain as an accused in that case. Against the above order the appellant moved the High Court under section 561‑A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order inter alia upon the ground that 'the above order constituted an abuse of process of the Court, but the same was dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the position would be highly anomalous if in the same case the com?plainant is to figure as an accused. According to him. If the Magistrate wanted to proceed against the appellant he could have done so after termination of the case pending before him. Section 561‑A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is designed to prevent an abuse of process of the Court. As pointed out by this Court in the case of M. S. Khawaja v. The State (PLD 1165 SC 287) :‑ "

the circumstances of each case, in which the inherent power is invoked, must be examined with care to determine whether the judicial proceeding is really intended to 'secure the ends of justice' or is really 'an abuse of the process of the Court'. To quash a judicial proceeding in order to 'secure the ends of justice' would involve a finding that if permitted to continue, that proceeding would defeat the ends of justice, or In other words, would either operate or perpetuate an injustice. To find an 'abuse', it would be necessary to see in the proceed?ing, a perversion of the purpose of the law such as to cause harassment to an innocent party, to bring about delay, or where the machinery of justice is engaged in an operation from which no result in furtherance of justice can accrue, and similar perversion results." In this case, the Magistrate issued summons on the basis of certain statements made by the witnesses. It would be difficult to contend that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take action upon the allegations contained in the statements of the witnesses. The learned counsel has brought to our notice that those allega?tions were not put to the appellant when his statement was recorded and that no such allegations were also made by the witnesses in their statements before the Police. The appellant will get sufficient opportunity to challenge the statements of the witnesses and to show that the allegations against him were with?out any basis or foundation. We, however, do not wish to say at this stage anything on merits. It will suffice to say that we do not see any indication that the prosecution of this appellant has been ordered merely .in order to harass him and as such section 561‑A is not attracted to this case. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.