1. This is an application for quashment of proceeding under section 420/406, P. P. C. Initiated on a complaint filed by Mst. Asia Hajiani at Meher Police Station, District Dadu. The F. I. R. Was registered after the S. M. L. A. Concerned had directed that the same may he registered. Mst. Asia had stated that she had given about k5. 35,000 to her husband, the present applicant who bad told her hat he will purchase agricultural land in her name and he bad purchased 68.16 acres of land but in the names of his sons, and that he had made an agreement in respect of that land with her but bad not honoured that agreement and had ousted her from his house since the last 7 or 8 years. She therefore, complained that Badruddin bad defrauded her. It is, therefore, an admitted position that this F. I. R. Was filed 7 and 8 years even after she had been ousted from the house by the present applicant. The F. I. R. Is dated 22April, 1979, and therefore, the ousting would be somewhere in 1972.
2. Mr. Ghulam Ali Agha appearing for Mst. Asia has shown me agreement Annexure `A-1' which Mst.
3. Asia filed in respect of these lands, The same is dated 9th May, 1968 where applicant Badruddin had agreed to give half of the land to Mst. Asia on account of the money which had been advanced by her to Badruddin. The land which had been purchased by Badruddin was purchased somewhere in 1963 or later as the Deputy Commissioner permitted Badruddin to acquire land on 31st December, 1963. It appears that Mst. Asia had moved the Deputy Commissioner, Dadu for mutating the land in her name in 1975 but the Deputy Commissioner after observing that her share of 50 paisa in the disputed land stands established had advised her to approach the civil Court to get necessary declaration of her title. Mst. Asia was not satisfied with that order and she wanted to avoid litigation in the civil Court, therefore, she moved the Commissioner, Hyderabad for mutation of her name in respect of the said land but the same was dismissed on 25th July, 1976 Mst. Asiand thereafter approached the Board of Revenue of the Sind Government but she was again advised that she should seek redress from competent Court. However she did not seek redress from the civil Court but taking the help of A. S. M. A., she filed the F. I. R. And proceedings were initiated which are now being challenged before me. The 2 lower Courts below have refused to acquit the accused under section 249-A of Cr. P. C. On the ground that evidence has not so far been recorded and, therefore, it could not be concluded that there is no probability of accused being convicted.
4. Although, limitation cannot be pleaded as a bar in criminal cases, but still the fact is that even from the documents produced before me by Mst. Asia, it is clear that she knew in 1968 that her husband had not purchased the property in her name and yet she refrained from moving any criminal Court or filing any other report before any Police Officer right from 1968 till 1979, shows that the complainant herself did not treat the matter as of criminal nature. Even after she was turned out in 1972 from the house she has waited, for 7 years before filing an F. I. R. It is correct that she has moved the Revenue Authorities for anutation in 1975, but in spite of the fact that she was clearly told by every one of the Revenue Authorities from 1975 till 1978 that the matter was of a civil nature yet she did not file any Civil Suit to establish her right and waited till 1979 for filing of the present F. I.
5. R. Clearly shows that the F. I. R. Was designed to bring a pressure upon the applicant to concede her demand of her share in the land. It is correct that the applicant has admitted in writing in 1968 that he would give half of the land to the respondent, but still the method adopted by respondent is, in the circumstances, of this case, a clear abuse of the process of the Court where the civil rights are being sought to be enforced through agency and coercive process of the criminal Court.