1988 P Cr (PLP)

Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan etc. P L D 1967 S C 317 rel. Hamid Khan for Petitioners. Fazalur Rehman for the State. Awan Zafar Iqbal for Respondent No.

2. Fazal Miran Chuhan for Respondents Nos. 3 and

4. In support of this petition for seeking quashment of criminal proceedings, Mr. Hamid Khan, Advocate has raised the following contentions:

(1) That a group is consistently working with the same pattern and on the same lines citing the same witnesses in various complaints which have been filed at Daska, Hafizabad, Kasur, Lahore and Okara. (2) It is further submitted that nine witnesses are common to all these complaints and four of them have been cited in the complaint which has been filed at Lahore, the quashment of which is being sought by the petitioner. (3) That in fact, petitioners Nos.1 and 2 have filed a civil suit against the respondent No. 4 for the cancellation of a document. It is alleged by the petitioner that they had not sold their property and the sale-deed, the cancellation of which is being sought is a fabricated and a concocted document. (4) That as a counterblast to the civil suit, the present complaint against the petitioner has been maneouvred by the aforesaid group to harass them. To substantiate the view point, Mr. Hamid Khan, Advocate, has drawn my attention to the fact that Mr. Naeemud Din Shah has not so far been served. His whereabouts are not known and his substituted service was ordered by this Court. That besides the complaint at Lahore, another complaint has also been filed against the petitioner at Okara and one at Daska. As far as the complaint filed at Daska is concerned, the same has been dismissed for non-prosecution any only two complaints, one at Lahore and the other at Okara are pending against the petitioner. After careful consideration of all the relevant facts which have been analysed and placed before me by the learned counsel, there is some semblance of truth in the contentions raised by the learned counsel. After careful consideration of fact, the fate of the two complaints, one at Okara and the other at Lahore would depend upon a detail examination of the complainant and witnesses and their cross-examination. On the face to it, without hearing the complainant, I would not like to pre-empt the jurisdiction of the trial Court because the said course cannot be adopted in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. I am fortified with this view by judgment of the Supreme Court in re: Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzummal Khan etc. P L D 1967 SC

317. However, in the peculiar circumstances, I will direct that the complaint at Okara and at Lahore shall be consolidated and shall stand transferred to the Court of Assistant Commissioner, Lahore, and shall be tried and disposed of I by the said Court. The learned Assistant Commissioner is directed to summon the complainant for a particular date and after his examination, should afford an elaborate opportunity to the counsel for the petitioner to cross-examine him, so that the complaint can be decided one way or the other. I will direct that these complaints shall be disposed of by the learned Assistant Commissioner, Lahore, within a period of four months. The learned Assistant Commissioner shall submit a monthly progress report about the progress made in the complaints. With these observations, this petition is disposed of. M.Y.H./M-444/L Order accordingly.