ABDUL GHANI AND ANOTHERs vs ALI LIASAN AND ANOTHER

' This is a petition by Abdul Ghani and his son Nazir Ahmed seeking quashment of the proceedings initiated against them on the complaint of Ali Hassan (respondent ) for the offences under section 420/406, P. P. C.

2. Ali Hassan complainant (respondent) a goldsmith of Jahania, District Multan, alleged in the complaint, that Abdul Ghani and his son Nazir Ahmad (Petitioners residents of Rangeela Bazar, Bahawalpur city were known to him through their relation Muhammad Vakil (Opium Contractor of Jahania). In the first week of August 1975, the petitioners went along with Muhammad Vakil and asked the respondent for some ornaments, as detailed in the complaint. They represented that the ornaments were required in connection with a marriage ceremony and would be returned after two weeks. On the assurance of Muhammad Vakil, that the ornaments were in safe hands, the respondent entrusted them to the petitioners. Since they failed to return the ornaments within time, the respondent alongwith Muhammad Vakil went to Bahawalpur and demanded them back, but was put off. The respondent alleged that after some time he again approached the petitioners for the return of his ornaments, but this time they flatly refused to return them. Hence this complaint.

3. It was contended that since Abdul Ghani petitioner's daughter Mst. Sharifan had filed a suit for the dissolution of her marriage against her husband Muhammad Siddiq, therefore, Muhammad Vakil, brother of her husband had put up Ali Hassan against the petitioner and got a false and frivolous complaint instituted through him, to harass them so that Mst. Sharifan should give up her suit. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the facts submitted on behalf of the petitioners were mere allegations and not evidence. It would, therefore, be premature to assess these allegations at this stage when the petitioners have just been summoned by the trial Court. I have considered the matter. Normally, a case should be allowed to proceed before the trial Court.

But if in a case the sole object of a complainant is to put up such facts before the Court, so that he may secure the attendance of his adversary as an accused before the criminal Court and to then dictate terms to him and settle other disputes with him, this would obviously be an abuse of the process of the Court. In such cases each adjournment before the trial Court would add to the victimization and harassm ent of the persons wrongly accused.

4. The circumstances under which this complaint has been filed leave no room for doubt that it has been tiled with an ulterior motive. Admittedly, the suit for the dissolution of marriage by Abiul Ghani petitioner's daughter was filed on 16-10-74 (as borne out by the certified copy of the plaint) i.e. Much before the present complaint was filed alleging the entrustment of ornaments in the first week of August 1975. It is noteworthy that the relations between the two families were strained due to the pending suit. It would, therefore, be difficult to accept that Vakil Muhammad a brother of Muhammad Siddiq would stand surety for the petitioners before a goldsmith of Jahanian for whom the petitioners were total strangers. Admittedly, the petitioners did not even belong to Jahanian.

5. In view of the aforementioned circumstances of this case, this petition is accepted and the proceedings against the accused in the complaint filed by the respondent are quashed.