1. ' This is an application for quashment of proceedings based on a complaint under section 457/380/34, P. P. C. Filed on 12-2-1979 by Mohammad Ismail complainant/respondent against Abdullah, Abdul Sattar and Mst. Naseem Bano in the Court of District Magistrate, Sanghar which was transferred to S. D. M., Shandadpur.
2. ' The applicant Mst. Naseem Bano is the wife of Mohammad Ismail and applicant Abdullah is father-in-law of the respondent while Abdul Sattar is brother-in-law of the respondent and the complaint is therefore by husband against his wife, father-in-law and brother-in-law. The complainant had alleged that on 2-1-1979 the present applicant had committed a theft in his house by breaking the boxes and removing away articles consisting of tape-recorder, cash of Rs, 3,000, nuth and ear-ring of two tolas gold, reshmi and sooti clothes along with two boxes consisting of valuable clothes. The explanation of delay of one month and 10 days before filing the complaint is that the complainant had filed his application with various officers but they did not record the F. I.
3. R. This is hardly any explanation for a delay of one month and 10 days. The complainant could have sent a telegram against the the police refusing to record the F. I. R. But he did not do so and this inordinate delay in the complaint is itself enough to condemn the complaint as a mala fide and an afterthought. On the top of it the applicants have filed with their quashment application the original of a complaint which Mohammad Ismail respondent had addressed to the S. P. Police, Sanghar on 9-9-1978 and where he had alleged that his .,:ther-in-law had brought his wife with her ornaments and clothes and they kept his wife and turned him out of their house and retained about Rs, 11,800 worth of clothes, silver ornaments, reshmi clothes. Watch and cash. This application bears the endorsement of S. P. Police and it is surprising that the applicants have obtained the same. Their explanation is that it was left lying on the ground by the applicant when the applicant came to take away his wife from them along with his companion as he was made to leave in hurry.
4. It would thus appear that even on 9-9-1978 the present respondent had made similar allegations as made in the complaint which is sought to be quashed. The only difference was that on 9-9-1978 it was complaint as against father-in-law only alleging wrongful retention of those articles and in this complaint the offence has been aggravated to one under section 457/380, P. P. C. Against all respondents, There appear to be two incidents of different dates in respect of most the same articles which is absurd.
5. ' Further submission of the applicants counsel is that there is a dispute between the parties in respect of sending of Mst. Naseem Bano to the respondent Ismail and the respondent Ismail had treated Mst. Naseem Bano with cruelty and the applicant No, '2 had brought Mst. Naseem Bano from the house of respondent Ismail in February 1978 and thereafter Mst. Naseem Bano has refused to go to the house of respondent Ismail, and therefore, the false complaint of theft and house tresspass has been filed by the complainant/respondent. The contention of applicants have not been controverted by respondent Mohammad Ismail who was issued notice of this application and who had been served with the notice on 30-4-1979. Further notice by registered A. D. For today's hearing was sent to him on 22-4-1980 but he has failed to come and has been called absent.
6. Mr. Ghulam Ali Agha, learned counsel for the State has supported the contentions of the applicants' counsel and had submitted that it appear to be a case of exercising pressure upon woman to return to her husband by filing a complaint after sometime of the alleged incident. I am of the view that the proceedings seem to have been filed in order to bring pressure upon the applicants to allow respondent Mohammad Ismail to take Mst. Naseem Bano. The complaint was filed after an inordinate delay of one month and 10 days and was therefore, apparently mala fide. In these circumstances the proceedings are quashed.