This application under section 561-A, Cr. P. C, has been preferred by the applicant for quashment of the proceedings against her In case, Anwarul Hag Siddiqui v. Mst. Amina Bat and another being Case No. 1/1977 pending In the Court of the learned Joint Civil Judge do F. C. M., Hyderabad.
2. The facts of the case are that the complainant Anwarul Haq (respondent No. 1) is allottee of one act of land out of S. No. 73 of deh Jamshoro of Hyderabad District, The land is adjacent to the Pipe Factory of the husband of the applicant Mst. Amine D.1. The complain--ant was once approached by the co-accused Hussain Khan to sell it to the applicant, But he refused it, The applicant and Hussain Khan is conspiracy with each other forged a power of attorney on behalf of the complainant/respondent No. 2 and transferred the land In question In name of the applicant by way of a registered sale-deed on 2nd October, 1973. The complainant therefore, Bled a direct complaint against the applicant Mst. Amine D.1 and Hussain Khan under sections 420/465/466/ 468 end 471, P. P. C. On 26November, 1973 before the A.-D. M. Hyderabad, who forwarded it to the lit Extra Joint Civil Judge & F, C. M. Hyderabad for disposal according to taw, The Ist, Extra Joint Civil Judge A ft. C. M., Hyderabad held a preliminary enquiry and thereafter issued process under section 466/471, P. P: C. On 4th December, 1973. The case has not been disposed of since then though material witnesses have been examined before the trial Court. The applicant approached this Court earlier also by way of a Cr. Misc. Appln. No. 293 of 1979, for quashment of the proceedings which was dismissed in limine by my learned brother Muhammad Zahoorul Haq, J. On 20th August, 1979. The applicant was however directed to move an application under section 249-A, Cr. P. C.
Before the trial Court and he accordingly moved it which is also dismissed on 7th November, 1979.th
3. Mr. B. J. Jakhrani the learned counsel for the applicant contends that the complainant Anwarul Haq, Muhammad Yakoob and Muhammad Saleh have been examined and there is no direct allegation against the applicant in respect of the transaction in their evidence. The applicant (being a lady) has not even been seen by the witnesses prior to this case. Moreover, the applicant is not signatory to the sale deed and there is no evidence to connect her with the offence. The proceedings against her are therefore, abuse of the process of the Court and liable to be quashed.
4. Mr. Zaheeruddin, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has on the other hand contended the land in question has been actually transferred in name of the applicant. The transfer has been made on basis of the forged documents. The sale-deed executed by the co-accused Hussain in favour of the applicant has been declared void and liable to be cancelled by the civil Court on 29th September, 1977. The applicant has deliberately and purposely preferred to be absent in the Court in order to protect the proceedings. There are other witnesses to be examined against the applicant to connect her with the offence.
5. Mr. Ghulamally H. Agha, the learned counsel appearing for the State opposes quashment of the proceedings in view of the fact that there is sufficient evidence on record and the proceedings of the case have been protracted on account of absence of the applicant who is responsible for it and not the complainant.
6. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant as well as respondents. The said deed executed by Hussain Khan (co-accused) in favour of the applicant has been declared void and liable to be cancelled by the civil Court by its order, dated 27th September.
1979. The applicant has undoubtedly remained absent in the trial Court with the result that the case has protracted otherwise it could have been earlier disposed of on merits. The circumstances under which the land in question has been transferred in name of the applicant and her liability for the offence could be only determined by the trial Court after all the material witnesses have been examined before it. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has failed to make out a case for quashment of the proceedings pending against her.