1994 P Cr (PLP)

MA. Aziz for Petitioner. Khalid Mahmud Farooqi for the State. Date of hearing: 25th May, 1993. Muhammad Siddique complainant lodged the F.I.R. on 27-12-1992 on the allegations that Farooq Ahmad petitioner with .12 bore gun and Azam petitioner with Sota alongwith their father and mother trespassed into the house, the former gave a blow with barrel dislocating the two teeth of the complainant and Azam gave a Sota blow hitting the right hand fingers of his wife Mst. Sajida. It is also there in the F.I.R. that they had given shoe beating to Mst. Sajida and dragged her in the courtyard while holding her from the head hair.

2. The petitioners moved application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. which was declined by the learned Magistrate and the revision petition failed in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is a petition for the quashment of the proceedings under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.

3. In spite of notice, none has appeared for the State. Record has been appreciated with the help of the learned counsel. There is much force in the petition. Two eye-witnesses namely Muhammad Ashraf and Siraj Din were cited but both have been given up as won over. Only Muhammad Siddique and his wife Mst. Sajida (P.Ws.2 and 4) have been left in the field and they have been examined. The complainant clearly stated that he did not get his wife Mst. Sajida medically examined but she contradicts him and her version is that she had gone to the doctor and only a chit was given to her. The chit as observed by the Court is only outdoor patient ticket without any prescription. This would, therefore, as correctly contended shows that trick was tried to be played and an outdoor chit obtained without getting any medical treatment. Dr. Muhammad Nawaz (P.W.1) had medically examined Muhammad Siddique complainant. He found upper tooth missing and one upper tooth shaky but without any sort of scratch, contusion or injury on or inside the lips. He had therefore, to admit in cross-examination that he had, to the query of the police, opined the injury to be self-suffered. Had the barrel of the gun been used to cause the blow dislocating the two teeth; as claimed, then certainly there must have been visible marks of violence on the lips or the gums. Nothing of the sort appears, as per the statement of the doctor. It is admitted by the complainant that the parties were living in the same house and on account of the throwing of garbage there was dispute between the ladies. The petitioner's also seem to have filed a parallel complaint which is pending in Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he would withdraw the same if this petition was decided on merits because his complaint was only to give the counter-version of the occurrence i.e. of the quarrel of the ladies in the street.

3. After having heard the learned counsel and going through the record, it seems that no case of violence was made out and if at all there was some skirmish, it was verbal or up to shoe beating. No cognizable case by the police, is made out. It has already been dragged on for years. On 12-11-1991 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.3598/B of 1991 four months time was granted to conclude the trial but no conclusion and rather a move up to the High Court (the present petition). Hence the proceedings are quashed subject of course, to the condition that the petitioners would also withdraw their complaint against the complainant and his wife now pending in the trial Court. N.H.Q./F-123/L Proceedings quashed.