The instant writ petition had been filed on behalf of the petitioners namely, Rehamt Ali, etc. With the prayer that F.I.R No,195 of 2003 registered on 22-5-2003 in Police Station Saddar, Gujranwala against them and others under sections 406, and 506, P.P.C., at the instance of respondent No,2, be quashed. It was averred by the petitioners that they alongwith others were employed as labourers at the Brick Kiln of respondent No,2 who did not pay wages to them and to their other companions.
On being asked for the payment of wages, respondent No,2 became furious and gave severe beating to them and their companions, alongwith his other partners who are proprietors of Chaudhry Bricks Company, Bano Kot Pulley, Sheikhupura Road, Gujranwala and who have to pay wages to the petitioners, their families and relatives, to the tune of Rs,1,25,000. On being asked to pay their dues, they maltreated them through their 'Goondas'. Petitioner No,1 then filed a habeas corpus petition (Criminal Miscce llaneous No,207-H of 2003) which was disposed of by this Court on 21-3-2003 and the alleged detenus numbering 63 were released. However, respondent No,2 who was also a respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous No,207-II of 2003 got this case registered on 225- 2003 in Police Station Saddar, Gujranwala against the petitioners and others only in order to harass and blackmail them as a counterblast and with the intention to usurp the amount of Rs,1,25,000 which was outstanding against him and his partners as wages. It was further averred that the case was got registered against the petitioners and their companions only in order to blackmail and pressurize them to extract labour from them. It was prayed by the petitioners that by issuing an appropriate writ/order, impugned F.1.R. No,195 of 2003 registered on 225-2003 in Police Station Saddar, Gujranwala under sections 406 and 506, P.P.0 be quashed.
2. Respondent No,2 and also the learned counsel for the State have resisted the petition.
3. In the F.I.R. It has been stated by the complainant/respondent No,2 that the amount of Rs,4,58,514 had been given to 13 accused persons as `Amanar and which was to remain with them till the completion of their work at the Brick Kiln. However, they worked at the Brick Kiln only for a few days, misappropriated the amount given to them as `Amanat' and filed a Habeas Corpus Petition (Criminal Miscelaneous No,207-14 of 2003) in the High Court but they failed to prove that they had been kept in illegal detention. They have also been threatening the complainant and other owners of the Brick Kiln. An amount of about Rs,5 lacs is outstanding against them and they have committed the offence of criminal breach of trust. Hence the matter was reported to the Police.
4. Admittedly, previously a Habeas Corpus Petition (Criminal Miscellaneous No,207-H of 2003) had been filed by one Rehmat Khan for the recovery of the petitioners and their companions. Even during the hearing of the said petition, it had been contended on behalf of respondents Nos.1 to 3 (in the said petition) that an amount of Rs,5,00.000 was outstanding against the alleged detenues but they worked on the Brick Kiln only for five days and then filed the Habeas Petition only in order to misappropriate the said amount. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that registration of criminal case against the petitioners and others vide F.I.R. No,195 of 2003 in Police Station Saddar. Gujranwala is clearly an abuse of process of law and hence the same is liable to be quashed. He has argued that addition of the word `Amanar in the F.I.R. Would not change the nature of the amount which was allegedly given to the petitioners and others. He has argued that no offence even on admitted facts could be made out against the accused as the dispute was entirely of civil nature and which had been converted into criminal proceedings with ulterior motives. He has argued that further proceedings before the trial Court on the basis of the impugned F.I.R. Would be a sheer wastage of time as there was no hope of success of this case. In this respect he has placed reliance on Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmad and 3 others 2000 SCMR122. He has also argued that registration of a case. To enforce a civil liability was not sustainable in law and the case was thus liable to be quashed. In this behalf he has placed reliance on Iftikhar Ahmad and another v. S.H.O. And 2 others PLD 2001 Lah.
399. Placing reliance on a landmark judgment of the honourable Supreme. Court Darshan Masih alias Rehmatay and others v. The State PLD 1990 Supreme Court 513, he has argued that the amount in question was clearly an advance (Paishgi). Allegedly given to bonded labuor and which has, absolutely no importance in the eye of law. He has argued that the challan was submitted in the learned trial Court on 10-8-2003, almost two months after the filing of this writ petition and hence this Court can quash the F.I.R. Even if the proceedings are pending before the learned trial Court. In this respect he has placed reliance on Arif Rafique v. The State 1992 PCr.LJ 679 (Karachi).
He has also referred to the provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act (III of 1992) and has argued that it is provided under subsection (2) of section 4 of the said Act that no person shall make any advance under, or in pursuance of, the bonded labour system or to compel any person to render any bonded labour of other from of forced labour. He has argued that registration of case against the petitioners is clearly mala fide and abuse of the process of law and hence the F.I.R. In question and also the proceedings initiated on its be quashed.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No,2 has argued that the challan in this case has already been submitted in the Court and that the amount in question had been given to the petitioners and others as `Amanat' and not a `Paishgr under the bonded labour system. Placing reliance on Sheikh Mahmood Saeed and others v. Ameer Nawaz Khan and another 1996 SCM R 839, he has argued that normally every case should be allowed to proceed according to law and resort to the provisions of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Should not be lightly made as the same would tend to circumvent the due process of law. In this behalf he has also placed reliance on Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan and 4 others PLD 1967 Supreme Court 317. Placing reliance on Altaf Hussain v. Abdul Samad 2000 SCM R 1945, he has argued that the power given by section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Cannot be so utilized as to interrupt or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure as laid down in the procedural statute.
6. I have carefully considered the arguments.
7. The provisions of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992 forbid any advance under or in pursuance of the bonded labour system or to compel any person to render any bonded labour or other form of forced labour. Section 5 of the said Act declares that any custom or tradition or practice or any contract, agreement or other instrument, whether entered into or executed before or after the commencement of the Act, by virtue of which any person, or any member of his family, is required to do any work or render any service as a bonded labour as void and inoperative. Even the contents of the F.I.R. Indicate that the amount in question had been given as `Paishgi'
(advance) for extracting labour from the petitioners and their companions. Even if this `Paishgi' is also described as `Amanat' in the F.I.R. It will not change its nature. Any such agreement or contract between the parties in that respect is void under section 4(2) of the aforesaid Act.
8. Now the question to bd seen is as to whether an F.I.R. Or the proceedings on its basis can be quashed even after the submission of challan in the Court. It was held in Miraj Khan's case (supra) that the High Court in exceptional cases can exercise jurisdiction without waiting for trial Court to pass order under section 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C., if the facts of the case so warrant and the main consideration to be kept in view would be whether the continuance of the proceedings before the trial forum would be a futile exercise, wastage of time and abuse of process of Court or not and if on the basis of facts admitted and patent on record, no offence can be made out, then it would amount to abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution to continue with the trial. In the same authority it was held that addition of the word `Amanat' with 'Qarz-i-Hasna' was ridiculous and appeared to have been added so as to justify the registration of the criminal case. It was also held in Arif Rafique's case (supra) that the power of the trial Court under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Is co- extensive with similar powers of High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. And both could be resorted to and nothing could bar High Court from entertaining an application under section 561-A,Cr.P.C. In appropriate cases, in its inherent jurisdiction.
9. It may be mentioned here that at the time of filing of this writ petition on 14-6-2003, investigation was pending and it was almost two months later, during the pendency of this petition that the challan was submitted before the trial Court. So this Court will deal with the position as it existed at the time of filing of this writ petition.
10. It may also be mentioned here that present one is not a petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. But a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and there is no bar to pass an appropriate order/writ/direction for quashing an F.I.R. If it was in patent violation of some provision of law. In this case, even if the allegations as contained in the F.I.R. Are believed, it will not make out a case against the petitioners and their companions as the agreement mentioned therein is clearly in violation of the provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition)
Act, 1992. Admittedly, two months prior to the registration of this case, the Habeas Corpus Petition (Criminal Miscellaneous No,207/II of 2003) was filed concerning the petitioners and their companions, against respondent No,2 and others i,e, the owners of Brick Kiln and hence registration of F.I.R. On the application of respondent No,2 against the petitioners is clearly mala fide. Hence continuing with the proceedings of the criminal case would be certainly an abuse of process of law and would certainly result in wastage of time. No offence even on admitted facts could be made out against the accused as the dispute was entirely of civil nature, which with ulterior motives had been converted into criminal proceedings. As the petitioners are also seeking a declaration that the registration of F.I.R. In question is without lawful authority, therefore, filing a petition for a writ of certiorari, is the most appropriate remedy. In exceptional circumstances (as is the position in this case), this Court can quash an F.I.R. And the proceedings initiated on its basis, even if the challan may have been submitted before the trial Court.
11. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition is accepted and the registration of F.I.R.
No,195 of 2003 in Police Station Sadder, Gujranwala under sections 406 and 506, P.P.C. And also the proceedings initiated on its basis are declared to be without any lawful authority and of no legal effect and the same are hereby quashed.