Muhammad Rafiq Anwar has filed this petition under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. For quashing the proceedings in complaint case titled Gul-e-Yasmeen v. Abdul Haq and 7 others, under sections 406 and 420, P. P. C., pending in the Court of Magistrate 1st Class, Lahore. He alleged in this petition that he was married to Gul-e-Yasmeen respondent No. 1, on 14-3-1976, and the respondent lived with him for a period of four months but then left for the house of her parents on the pretext of attending some marriage; that she did not return to his house in spite of several efforts; that a son was born and he (petitioner) was denied access to see his son whereupon he was constrained to file a suit under section 25 and an application under section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act in the Court of Guardian Judge, Lahore, on 18-12-1976 ; that he filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights on 31-1-1977, before Judge Family Court, Lahore ; that as a counter-blast, respondent No. 1 filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on 31-3-1977 and another suit for maintenance on 13-6-1977 and all the cases had been consolidated and were still pending in Court ; that in July or August 1977, respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Martial Law Administrator for the recovery of dowry but since the matter was of civil nature, the application was dismissed ; that respondent No. 1 filed a complaint on 28-12-1977, under sections 406 and 420, P. P. C. Before a Magistrate at Lahore, who vide order dated 28-1-1918, issued process against him and seven others ; that the facts stated in the complaint, even if admitted, did not constitute any offence as there was no fraudulent or dishonest inducement on his (petitioner's) part leading respondent No. 1 to deliver the property to him ; and that the articles given to the respondent No. 1 as dowry could be recovered through process of law and not through pressure of criminal proceedings.
2. The case of the petitioner right from the beginning was that he had never refused to return the dowry and he was being dragged in the criminal complaint maliciously. During the proceedings before this Court, respondent No. 1 filed the list of dowry which was supplied to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner supplied three lists one containing the details. Of the articles of the dowry, the second details of the articles which had not been mentioned by respondent No. 1- in the list and which articles were with the petitioner and the third containing the details of the articles which bad been given by the petitioner to respondent No. 1 at the time of marriage. The parties did not come to any settlement during the proceedings and I decided to dispose of the petition on merits.
3. Certain articles were given to respondent No. 1 by the parents at the time of marriage. According: to the petitioner, respondent No. 1 left his house on the pretext of joining marriage and thereafter did not return. According to him, the dowry was still lying at his house and he was prepare to return the same to the respondent. The question for determination in this petition is as to whether or not any criminal offence was made out. I have carefully examined the complaint. The important ingredients of sections 406 and 420, P. P. C. Are lacking in this case. From the allegations levelled in the complaint, no 7riminal case is made out and the petitioner is being dragged in unnecessarily. It is an abuse of process of Court which has to be checked. The petition is accepted and the proceedings arc quashed. It shall be open to respondent No. 1 is move the civil Court for the redress of her grievance as regards the dowry.