1984 P Cr (PLP)

Nemo for Respondent No.1. Date of hearing: 3rd October, 1983. The petitioners by means of this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. seek quashment of the proceedings pending in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore in pursuance of a complaint lodged by Abdul Sattar respondent No.1 on 16-9-1980 under sections 10, 11 and 16 of Ordinance VII of 1979 read with sections 363/380/109/34 P.P.C.

2. Respondent No.1 mentioned in the complaint that he was married to Mst. Parveen Akhtar on 26-6-1967 at Lahore and out of the wedlock four children were born to the spouses; that on the night between 17/18-11-1979 the petitioners abducted Mst. Parveen Akhtar, his wife and the children and committed theft of ornaments and clothes worth Rs. 4,

050. Later on he requested the accused for restoration of the abudctee and his children but they evaded the matter and ultimately he had to file the complaint. After recording preliminary evidence the learned Sessions Judge summoned the petitioners for offence under section 16 of Ordinance VII of 1979.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners applied for their acquittal by invoking provisions of section 265, K-Cr.P.C. but their application was rejected by the learned trial Court. It was contended that the petitioners were summoned since 16-12-1980 but the complainant failed to produce any evidence in support of the complaint, with the result that no progress could take place in the disposal of the complaint. The petitioners suffered agony of trial since then. It was also contended that no case is made out against the petitioners because the abductee in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. exonerated the petitioners. Learned counsel read out some interim orders passed by the learned trial Court from the order sheet to show that no serious effort had been made for procuring attendance of the complainant's witnesses.

4. Learned counsel for the State did not oppose this petition and stated that it appeared that the complainant did not produce his evidence for a considerable time either because the same was not available or that he intended to prolong the decision of the complainant for the embarrass ment of the petitioners.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the documents on the file I am not inclined to stifle the proceedings pending in pursuance of the complaint lodged by Abdul Sattar at this stage. However, I direct the learned trial Court to dispose of the complaint within two months as the proceedings in the case suffered many adjournments without justifiable reasons.

6. Subject to the observation made above this petition is dismissed. M.Y.H. Petition dismissed.