ABDULLA H Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. The petitioner above-named has filed the above petition for quashment of proceedings pending against him under section 110, Cr.P.C., in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Matli, District Badin, on the facts and grounds mentioned in the above petition.

2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner in support of the above petition submitted,, that the present proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner, on general and vague allegations without citing any specific instances, places and dates in respect of the alleged allegations made in the police report, simply on the basis of one theft case, which was also challaned on the same day and consequently, the said proceedings are in complete violation of the provisions of section 110, Cr.P.C., and cannot be sustained. In support of this contention, the learned Advocate for the petitioner relied upon cases reported in 1983 P Cr. 1 J 205, 1980 P Cr. L J 363 and 1982 P Cr. L J 615.

3. The learned Advocate appearing for the State at the outset submitted, that he supports the above petition for quashment, as initiating of proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of the facts on record were not warranted, in view of the law laid down by this Court in various cases, specially those cited by the learned Advocate for the petitioner.

4. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the record and proceedings of the trial Court as well as through the cases cited by the learned Advocate for the petitioner.

5. I find police report, dated 25th June, 1981, on the basis of which the proceedings in question were initiated against the present petitioner, is general, vague and does not specify any instances, places and the dates for the alleged incidents at all. In addition to this, the only case cited against the petitioner in respect of the proceedings in question is of a theft, which was lodged on 14th June, 1981 and it-as not disposed of when the proceedings were initiated. In view of this the cases cited by the learned Advocate for the petitioner are fully applicable to the petitioner's case, with which cases, I am in full A agreement for the reasons given therein and consequently I find that the proceedings initiated against the present petitioner under section 110, Cr.P.C., were not at all warranted by the provisions of the said section and as such cannot be sustained, as the allegations made in the police report cannot constitute habits as contemplated by section 110, Cr.P.C., and as such continuance of the said proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the said Court.

6. Therefore, I allow the above petition and quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner under section 110, Cr.P.C., in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Matli and discharge the bail bonds executed by the petitioner in the said case.

7. H. A. K. Proceedings quashed.