SALMAN HAMID, J.---Two sons of respondent No. 1 namely Dr. Moazamuddin and Dr. Zaighamuddin married the sisters of applicant namely Dr. Seema and Dr. Samina. Similarly the sons of respondent No.1 namely Dr. Salahuddin and Dr. Imtiaz married with the sisters of the applicant namely Nuzhat and Ambreen. The sisters of the applicant filed suits for dissolution of marriage by way of Khula before the concerned family court which were allowed and thereafter also preferred suits for maintenance which too were allowed by the concerned family court.
2. Perturbed with the above, in the first instance, the respondent No. 1 forced his daughters, namely Nuzhat and Ambreen to get divorce/khula from the two brothers of the applicant and having failed to convince them; resorted to filing of recovery suits through his sons namely Dr. Moazamuddin and Dr. Zaighamuddin for recovery of dowry articles. Both suits having been dismissed by the concerned court and appeals also having been dismissed, the respondent No. 1 got infuriated further with the result that private complaint against the present applicant was preferred by him under sections 324, 34, 506(2) and 504, P.P.C. Alleging therein that firstly the applicant extended threats of dire consequences and thereafter on 17-5-2010, he (applicant) came to his house along with two other accused unknown to him and that the applicant tried to kill him by firing at him with the pistol and at the time of such incident his son Dr. Moazamuddin was there busy with his patient.
3. On the basis of above complaint, the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Benazirabad (1st ASJ) on 2-6-2010 got recorded statement of the respondent No. 1 under section 200, Cr.P.C. And ordered preliminary inquiry to be conducted by Judicial Magistrate-I Shaheed Benazirabad (JM) to ascertain the truth and thereafter on 16-6-2010, the JM got recorded the statement under section 202 of Cr.P.C. Of prosecution witnesses namely Dr. Moazamuddin and Jan Muhammad Chandio and forwarded the record and proceedings of the Ist ASJ with an opinion that offence under section 324, P.P.C. Has been made out. Resultantly on 1-7-2010, Ist ASJ took cognizance of the offence under section 324, P.P.C. Only against the applicant and ordered for issuance of bailable warrants against him in the sum of Rs. 50,000 which resulted in filing of the present Application.
4. It was argued by the applicant's counsel that admittedly and on the face of the record there existed and are still existing acute matrimonial disputes between the two families i.e. The family of the applicant and that of the respondent No.1 and that the respondent No.1 having lost all the cases filed by his sons and himself against the sisters of the applicant resorted to filing of frivolous and concocted complaint, which was full of contradictions and was nothing, but an outcome of frustration tainted with mala fide and was commenced only to avenge the applicant and his other family members. It was further argued that Dr. Moazamuddin is son of the complainant and the other P.W. Jan Muhammad Chandio was also related to the second wife of Dr. Moazamuddin and showing his presence on the day of incident was made-up for the purposes of the complaint and therefore, was not free from doubts and that despite the fact that alleged incident according to the respondent No.1 took at a place of hustle and bustle no independent witness was named to corroborate the contents of the complaint. It was further argued that though it was alleged that the respondent No.1 went to the police station, the name of such police station was not disclosed and therefore the complaint was patently concocted and manifest nothing but the fact that the respondent No.1 did not go to the police station and that such alleged incident never occurred. It was further argued that statement recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. And under section 202, Cr.P.C., was entirely different and inconsistent with the complaint and despite trying to improve such statements nothing came out and therefore, it was a fit case where the complaint ought to have been dismissed which having not been dismissed the applicant was left with no other choice but to file present quashment proceedings. It was finally argued that looking at the contents of the complaint and the statements of the respondent No. 1 there was no likelihood even remotely that the complaint would bear any fruit as the complaint was nothing but a counter blast to the successful litigation initiated by the sisters of the applicant against the sons of respondent No. 1.
Having argued as much, the learned counsel for the applicant prayed for the quashment of Case No. 214 of 2010, pending before Ist ASJ. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the case of Bashir Ahmed Malik v. The State and another (1985 SCM R 684) and Mst. Zubeda and .6 others v. Ghulam Ahmed (1978 PCr.LJ (Lahore) 123).
5. The learned counsel appearing for the State supported the contents of the application and stated that the statement of the respondent No.1 and the witnesses are inconsistent with the complaint and it was nothing but a counter blast and outcome of the civil litigation which was initiated against the sons of the respondent No. 1. The learned State counsel expressed his consent in grant of the application.
6. On 30-8-2010 the counsel for the respondent No. 1 was called absent and therefore the application was adjourned for today (27-9-2010) with a caution that if the learned counsel for the respondent would be heard and decided ex parte. Despite this order, the counsel for No.1 failed to appear and defend the interest this his client, the matter the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 chose not to appear before this court and defend his interest.
7. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and that of the State counsel.
8. From narration of the events as mentioned here in above, and weighing the statements of the respondent No. 1 and his two witnesses it has become abundantly clear that the same are inconsistent with each other and are not free from material ambiguities. It has also become clear that the complaint was nothing but an attempt in futility to involve the applicant in frivolous case in order to quench the thirst of revenge and to extinguish the fire burning in the heart of respondent No. 1 against the applicant and his family members. In the case of Bashir Ahmed Malik 1985 SCM R 684, under similar circumstances the honourable Supreme Court found that the litigation was merely to harass and intimidate the parties therein quashed the proceedings, pending before the court of Magistrate. In the present ease as well, keeping in view the history of the case, it has become abundantly clear that the complaint was nothing but an outcome of frustration of respondent No.1 to get even with the applicant and his other family members. It is clear from the record of the file that the complaint is baseless and would not yield anything but frustrate the applicant who is a medical student whose carrier, the respondent No.1 is bent upon to ruin.
Needless to mention that no brother, specially who is studious and pursuing a bright career in medicine would indulge himself in killing father in law of his sisters and put at peril their matrimonial lives.
9. For the foregoing reasons I see no merits in the complaint and find it appropriate to quash the proceedings of the case No.214 of 2010, presently pending before the Ist ASJ by exercising powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. As keeping the case pending any longer would amount to the abuse of process of law which must not be allowed even for a moment further.
10. The application is therefore allowed in terms of the above.