1. The seven peritioners seek quashment of proceedings under section 107/117, Cr. P. C. In the Court of S. D. M. Malir.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the petition are as under :- One Sufi Sultan Arshad, a shopkeeper and milk-seller had taken on lease Shop No. 5 in the Abbasi Market, Model Colony, Karachi from Petitioner No. 1 since July, 1975. He had made an application to D. S. P. Malir Colony which was later on endorsed to S. H. O. Model Colony Police Station which resulted in the initiation of report under section 107/ 117, Cr. P. C. In the Court of S. D. M. Malir, Karachi.
3. The aforesaid Sufi Sultan Arshad named not only the petitioner but also his relatives and friends as persons from whom he apprehended danger to his life and property. It is the case of petitioner No. 1 that he had rented out the shop to Sufi Sultan Arshad who is a chronic defaulter in payment of rent, and when petitioner No. I demanded the rent due to him he was annoyed as a result of which to coerce petitioner No. 1 he had reported against his father and other close relations. It is the further case of the petitioners that false cases in various Courts, including suit No. 792/1980 in the Court of 14th Civil Judge, Karachi and Quashment Petition No. 725/ 1980 in which Sufi Sultan Arshad had cited petitioner No. 1 as respondent No. 2 and another Quashment Petition No. 675 of 1980 in which peti--tioner No. 1 was cited as respondent No. 2 are pending before this Court. It is alleged that the proceedings sought to be quashed are mala fide at the instance of Sufi Sultan Arshad.
4. The main ground taken in the instant petition is that the learned S. D. M. Malir who received the report of S. H. O. Under section 107/117, Cr. P. C. Had issued process against the petitioners without passing an order under section 112, Cr. P. C.
5. The record of the proceedings was requisitioned by this Court and it is apparent therefrom that the learned Magistrate received the report on 27th July, 1980 and ordered registration of the enquiry and issued summons to the petitioners the very day without recording any order under section 112, Gr. P. C. The process was repeated against the petitioners on 22nd August, 1980, 15th September.
6. 1980 and 6th October, 1980 and again on 15th October, 1980. It is abundantly clear that the learned Magistrate sought to put the machinery provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure in motion on receipt of a complaint under section. 107, without passing an order as required by section 112, and con--sequently without informing the petitioners of the substance of the information against them.
7. The processes against the petitioners were presumably issued under section 114 without previously passing any order---under section 112, Cr. P. C. 1n the circumstances, the entire proceedings from the very start stand vitiated and were illegal and not in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
8. Mr. Mukhdoom Abdul Wali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has referred to an unreported decision of this Court in Ali Muhammad and another v. The State (Criminal Miscellaneous No. Q-22 of 1981) in which application under section 561-A, Cr. P. C praying for quashment of proceedings in Criminal Case under sections 420, 468, 471, P. P. C. Read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act had been filed. It was observed in that decision that it would only be -in extremely rare cases that the High Court would undertake a sort of process to determine the truth or falsity of allegations in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr. P. C.
9. The facts of the case were totally different from the facts of instant case in which there is illegal .4 action which amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. The proceed--ings under section 107/117, Cr. P. C. Having been initiated by adopting wrong procedure even for the issue of process are, therefore, quashed and the application allowed.