1985 P Cr (PLP)

Syed Arshad Ali v. Naveed Raza 1984 P Cr. L J 585 ref. Mian Ghulam Rasool for Petitioner. Zafar Ahmad Gondalfor Respondent No.1. Fazal Naul for the State. Date of hearing: 20th November, 1984. This is a petition under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C., by Mst. Gohran Bibi, petitioner, for the quashment of proceedings in the private complaint case titled Jamal Din v. Ghulam Jillani and others pending before Ch. Nazir Ahmad, M.I.C., Lahore, under section 380, P.P.C.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 6‑3‑1983, Mst. Zohran Bibi, the present petitioner, filed a suit for dissolution of marriage her husband, Jamal Din, the present respondent No.1, before the Family Court at Sheikhupura. On 17‑3‑1984, the respondent filed a suit against the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court at Lahore which was transferred by the High Court to the Family Court at Sheikhupura for disposal with the petitioner's case. On 7‑6‑1984, the respondent filed a complaint under section 365, P.P.C. at Police Station, Lower Mall, Lahore, against his brother Ghulam Jilani, his sister‑in‑law Mst. Mukhtar Begum and one Nazir Ahmad alleging therein that, about a month back these persons had abducted his wife Mst. Zohran Bibi and his two children from the District Court premises, when he, his wife and children were there. The police, after inquiry, having found that the dispute was of a civil nature and pending in the Family Court, filed the said application without registering any case. Not satisfied with the attitude of the police, the respondent on 18‑7‑1984 filed a private complaint under section 380, P.P.C. against the same three persons and his wife, Mst. Zohran Bibi, the present petitioner, before a Magistrate at Lahore. In the said complaint, the respondent alleged that Ghulam Jilani. Mst. Mukhtar Begum and Nazir Ahmad .had come to his house about five/six months back and asked for his permission to take his wife Mst. Zohran, petitioner, to see her mother, which permission he had granted, but that they took away his wife and children during his absence and when he returned to his home he found that cash amounting to Rs.3,000, gold ornaments weighing two tolas and six silk suits were missing. He further alleged that when he approached the said persons for the return of his wife and goods, they refused. After recording the preliminary evidence, the learned Magistrate issued summons to the said four persons named in the complaint, including the petitioner, to face trial under section 380, P.P.C. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a petition under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. for the quashment of the same, which is now before me for disposal.

3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner the respondent and the State. It is apparent from the brief facts submitted above that the present private complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner and others under section 380, P.P.C. is mala fide and filed primarily with the intention to harass the petitioner and to compel her to either withdraw her suit for dissolution of marriage or to succumb to his pressure. In his earlier written complaint lodged at the Police Station, Lower Mall, Lahore, on 7‑6‑1984, a photo copy of which has been supplied by the petitioner and which has been placed on the record, respondent did take gold ornaments or silk clothing with her, when she left his house. In the present private complaint, however, he has alleged these facts. In the earlier complaint, dated 7‑6‑1984, he mentioned that his wife and two children had been abducted about a month before the filing of that complaint, which would place the time of occurrence in May, 1984, but in the present private complaint he stated that she had been taken away with his permission five/six months before the lodgement of the private complaint, which places the time of occurrence in January/ February, 1984. The random manner in which the respondent has been alleging facts fraudulently to harass the petitioner, stands out prominently and shows that the whole object A of the exercise is to harass the petitioner. It is, therefore, obvious that the private complaint has been filed maliciously to compel the petitioner to either withdraw her suit for dissolution of marriage against the respondent or to succumb to his pressure. In these circumstances, the private complaint against the petitioner and others deserves to be quashed.

4. In normal circumstances this Court first expects that a person desiring seek quashment of proceedings under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. has moved the trial Court first under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. before coming to this Court, but, in very exceptional circumstances, this Court has not insisted on this principle, as held in Syed Arshad Ali v. Navid Raza 1984 P Cr. L J

585. Considering that the petitioner is a lady and is being fraudulently harassed by her husband, I would, as a very special case, not insist on the principle generally adopted by this Court.

5. In these circumstances, this petition is accepted and the proceedings in the private complaint case titled Jamal Din v. Ghulam Jilani and others pending before Ch. Nazir Ahmad, M.I.C., Lahore, under section 380, P.P.C. are hereby quashed. M . A . K Petition accepted.