ABDUL GHANI Versus THE STATE

This is a petition by Abdul Ghani and his wife Mrs. Zubeda Ghani seeking quashment of criminal proceedings under section 420/ 406/34, P.P.C. pending in the Court of Additional City Magistrate Court No.1 (Central), Karachi. The proceedings were initiated, consequent to an F.I.R. by Zaheer Alam Qureshi registered as Crime No. 176/82 P.S. Nazimabad, Karachi on 5-8-1982. Briefly the facts giving rise to this petition are that respondent No.2 Zaheer Alam Qureshi was a tenant of the applicant whose wife Mrs. Zubeda Ghani was the landlady of the complainant. Zaheer Alam Qureshi was the defaulting tenant as such the petitioners and the respondent entered into a litigation and a Rent case was filed by the respondent against the complainant Zaheer Alam Qureshi and other tenants. Ejectment orders were passed on 30-11-1983 and later on suit for recovery of arrears of rent was filed. .

2. On 8-7-1982 respondent Zaheer Alam Qureshi made an application to the S.H.O. Nazimabad Division P.S. Nazimabad, Karachi to the effect that Mst. Zubeda wife of Abdul Ghani petitioner came to their home and demanded two pieces of golden ornaments (ear-rings, Jhumka and Necklace, weighing 5 Tolas on 16-6-1982 on the pretex that the items will be shown to the jeweller to prepare ornaments of the same design for her daughter. According to the F.I.R. both the items were given to the applicant Mst. Zubeda in absence of the respondent. When respondent demanded the ornaments back the applicants refused to return the same. On 28-7-1982 the respondent Zaheer Alam 4ureshi made another application addressed to the Deputy Commissioner West wherein he made same grievance. The application was endorsed by the D.M. to S.P., Nazimabad who forwarded it to the S.H.O., Nazimabad who directed A.S.I. to take necessary action according to law. Consequent to this direction F.I.R. No.176/82 was registered on 5-8-1982 and after necessary investigation the applicants were challenged in the Court of Additional City Magistrate No.1 (Central), Karachi. On 9-1-1984 a formal charge was framed under section 420/406/34, P. P. C . which has been read over to the petitioners who did not plead guilty to the charge. So far the progress of the proceedings is concerned respondent Zaheer Alam Qureshi has been examined and the case is not yet concluded. In the application made by the respondent to the S.H.O. as well as District Magistrate no names of the witnesses were given, however, in the challan as many as 13 witnesses are shown.

3. I have heard the petitioner Abdul Ghani in person and Mr. Fariduddin, Advocate for respondent No.2 and Mr. Hayat Qureshi for respondent No.1 has also addressed the Court. I have also gone through the case papers. The grievance of the petitioner is that the case is lingering in the Court of Additional City Magistrate for the last more than 4 years. He has further contended that the proceedings were mala fide and were filed in order to compel the appellant to withdraw the rent cases against the respondent and to forego the arrears of rent due. The present case against the petitioners filed is false and it is filed to pressurise the applicants, hence they have made present petition.

4. I have heard the petitioner Abdul Ghani. He has vehemently urged that the allegations levelled against him are totally false and in the application made to the S.H.O. and subsequently to District Magistrate inconsistent and contradictory version is given by the respondent No. 2. The complainant respondent has filed this case to harass the petitioner. In support of his contention the petitioner has filed both the applications earlier made by the respondent and pointed out the inconsistency. Also the petitioner has filed the judgment in the rent case as well as judgment in civil suit between the parties to which reference is made by the petitioner and the learned counsel who appeared for the respondent No.2 has not controverted the facts of the previous litigation pending between the parties. However, Mr. Hayat Qureshi appearing for the State has not supported the application. On consideration of the contention of the petitioner, I find that the earliest version of the respondent in his application to the S.H.O. , Nazimabad was that the golden ornaments were given to petitioner No.2 Mrs. Zubeda Ghani by the wife of the respondent No.2 in his absence which were obtained on the pretext that ornaments were to be shown to the goldsmith but in application made to the District Magistrate the respondent's case was that this was all done while he was present in the house. The perusal of statement of respondent Zaheer Alam Qureshi during the trial on oath shows that the ornaments were demanded by the petitioner No.2 as they required the same to attend some marriage function. On hearing the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 it is established that the dispute between the parties started over payment of rent long before the alleged incident of demand of ornaments by the petitioner. This story appears to be unnatural as the number of cases were filed between the parties and their relations were strained. The witnesses shown in the case namely, Akram and Imamuddin are also the tenants of petitioner against whom also the rent cases were filed by the petitioner which fact is also not denied by the respondent's Advocate. The petitioner has also argued that when respondent lodged the case against the petitioner his brother was occupying an important post at Karachi. The petitioner has pointed out the admission of the, respondent No. 2 in his deposition which reads as under:-

"It is correct to suggest brother was Deputy Commissioner, South when I lodged the case against the accused, again says that he was acting Home Secretary at that time."

5. I have noticed that there are material inconsistencies also since it is an admitted position that there was enmity over rent matters between the parties it cannot be believed that the transaction alleged could take place between them and motive to falsely implicate the petitioner is prominently spelled out from the circumstances and the prosecution case against the petitioner appears to be improbable and I am of the view that the object of filing these proceedings obviously was to harass the petitioner as such in my considered view the continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court, consequently, I accept this petition and quash the proceedings pending before the Additional City Magistrate.

6. Criminal Proceedings C/98 of 1984 (State v. Abdul Ghani and Mst. Zubeda) under section 420/406/34, P.P.C. are hereby quashed.

S.A./A-309/K ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Proceedings quashed.