1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.-The appellant herein filed a complaint on 7th of November, 1975, before a First Class Magistrate, Bahawalpur, alleging therein that the first respondent had taken foreign breed hens and eggs worth Rs. 1,700 on 7th of February, 1975, for display in his poultry farm which was to be inaugurated by the then Prime Minister where after the birds and eggs were to be returned ; and as the engagement was postponed, the appellant demanded the return of the birds and the eggs but the first respondent put him off on false promises and finally he gave a letter on 23rd of February, 1965, addressed to a local Advocate to pay Rs. 1,000 on his behalf which amount was also not paid as the Advocate informed him that he had received a telephonic message from the first respondent that he should not make the payment as he would do it himself, but even that promise had not been fulfilled.
2. The learned Magistrate examined four witnesses on 21st of April, 1976, and, thereupon, took cognizance of the offence under section 406, P. P. C. And summoned the first respondent to face the charge. The first respondent, thereupon, filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 122/Q of 1977 under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. Wherein he sought the quashment of the proceedings. The High Court, without adverting to the complaint as to whether the allegations made therein constituted an offence, allowed the prayer holding that the case was false and concocted considering the credentials of the first respondent.
3. Leave to appeal was granted to consider as to whether this order was legally maintainable.
4. The principle upon which the complaint can be quashed is well settled, namely, that the High Court should examine the complaint to determine as to whether it makes out an offence and in doing this exercise it should not be influenced by any extraneous material, which is not germane to the issue. However, it may also be stated here that the High Court is not denuded of its powers to quash the proceedings if it is satisfied from other cogent material that the prosecution was launched for improper motives, merely to harass the accused, or that its continuance would be an abuse of the process of the Court or for other reasons which impell the Court to conclude that it would not be in the ends of justice to allow the prosecution to continue. The High Court, however, in the instant case, held that the case was false and concocted on the basis of the credentials of the respondent without there being any material to hold so. Further, the High Court also failed to examine, the allegations in the plaint to determine as to whether the charge was groundless or not.
5. It was, therefore, a premature conclusion, which had no legal sanctity.
6. Accordingly, we would allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and remand the case to the trial Magistrate with a direction that the trial should be concluded within three months subject of course to the first respondent not indulging in any delaying tactics. He is on bail and shall continue to remain on bail till the conclusion of the trial of the case.