This application under section 561-A of Cr. P. C. Is filed seeking quashment of the direct complaint filed by respondent No. 2 under section 302/336/220. P. P. C. At present pending in the Court of 11 Additional Sessions Judge. Hyderabad, being Sessions Case No. 606/76. There is also the State Case, "The State v. Baser and others" under sections 307, 332, 225, 147 and 148, P.P.C. Arising out of the same incident and is pending before the same Court of learned 11 Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, being Sessions Case No. 849/76. No application for quashment of proceedings of that case seems to have been filed in this Court.
2. The prosecution case briefly is that the father of the applicant No. 1 and maternal uncle of applicant No. 2 had taken the lease of 145 acres of land, which was stated to be cultivated by the respondents namely.Ramzan, Mehar, Pandhi, Achar. Umar, Jumo, etc. Who were also sub-- sequently accepted by the lessees as permanent tenants settled on the leased land. The prosecution version in the direct complaint is that the applicant No. 2 had been out and out to forcibly eject the respondent No. 2 and others who were the haris settled on the land. Consequently both the applicants, it is alleged, solicited police assistance with mala fide intentions to harass, coerce and threw the respondent No. 2 and the other tenants from the land. Both the applicants had approached A. S. I. Muhammad Malook and the other respondents to take steps in dislodging the haris for getting the land vacated from them.
3. On 16th May. 1972, at about 7.30 a. m. The police party reached the village of the respondent No. 2, who is the complainant in this case, anal asked the haris tenants to vacate the leased land, otherwise they will face dire consequences. When the haris refused the applicants lost 1 their tamper and asked respondent No. 3 and the other Police Constables in his party, respondents Nos.4 to 9, who were accompanied by the respondents Nos. 10 to 13 to attack and by force removed the haris from the land. They started beating the woman folk of the haris, whom they dragged out of their houses and in order to create panic started firing. Deceased Sadik and Busar were alleged to have been fired upon with a revolver by A. S. I. P. Muhammad Malook, respondent No. 3, who fell down bleading. In spite of it Sadik deceased, Busar, Mehar. Ramoo r and Achar were arrested and taken into custody and were brought by respondent No. 3 to Shah Abdul Karim Police Post. Since the condition of Sadik deceased was serious, he as well as injured Busar were removed to the Hospital Tando Mohammad Khan, where Sadik succumbed to his injuries and died.
Respondent No. 2 complainant ran to lodge the report at the Tando Mohammad Khan Police Station but no case was registered nor was the report taken down. He approached the higher authorities but to no effect. He, therefore, filed the direct complaint in the Court of Civil Judge and First Class Magistrate, Tando Mohammad Khan where his statement under section 200, Cr. P. C.
And of the witnesses Kazo, Mehar, Busar, Ramoo and others were taken down horn the statement of these witnesses offences under sections 302, 436, 220, P. P. C. Appeared to have been made out and the case was consequently registered.
4. On the other hand another case through A. 4.
1. P. Muhammad Malook respondent No. 3 was registered at P. S., Tando Mohammad Khan for offences under sections 307, 332, 225,147, 148 and 34, P. P. C. Against the respondents and other haris/tenants (?f the land. In that report it is alleged that respondent No. 3 alongwith the Police party consisting of respondents Nos 4 to 9 proceeded to the place of occurrence in uniforms carrying rifles and cartridges. The two applicants also met them there. The haris were called and during interrogation they were arrested. Their names are mentioned in the F.I.R. It is alleged that haris asked their womanfolk to set their own houses on fire and kill the Police party. As soon as the applicant and the respondents arrested the haris and pro-- ceeded towards the police station, it is alleged in the F.I.R. That about 40 persons coming from behind challenged them they were armed with lathis and hatchets. In the attack respondent o. 5 is stated to have received injury on his head and respondent No.6 was also injured. It is further alleged that respondent No. 3 ordered ; the policemen to en fire in self-defence. Respondent No. 3 himself had also fired two shots from his service revolver out of which one shot hit Sadik deceased, who fell down and another shot hit Busar. Sadik was arrested by the Police whereas others ran away. It is further alleged in the report that respondent No. 7 had also fired two shots and respondents Nos. 8 & 9 as well as fired three shots at the villagers. Those who were arrested were brought at the Police Station and respondent No. 3 lodged the report on behalf of the State.
5. Since no action was taken on the report lodged by respondent No. 2, he filed a direct complaint in the Court under sections 302, 4364 220, P. P. C. Which was registered His statement under section 200, Cr. P. C. And that of the five witnesses were recorded under section 202, Cr. P.
6. In the instant case majority of the respondents ate Police Officers, who are alleged to have murdered deceased Sadik a d caused injuries by fire-arms to the witnesses. Their defence is the countercase which was registered on the F.I.R. Lodged by respondent No. 3 The appraisal of the evidence can be done only by the Trial Court here both the cases are pending disposal. In the instant case, therefore, which is filed on the direct complaint of respondent No. 2, it cannot be said that the proceed--ings against the respondents Nos. 3 to 13 are abuse of the process of the Court.
This is not a fit case in which the inherent owners of the High Court can be invoked for quashment of the proceedings. f find no merit in this application, being premature, which is accordingly dismissed.
7. However, since the alleged occurrence is stated Into have taken place as far back as 16th May, 1972, the learned Trial Court would take appropriate steps to expedite the proceedings without further delay.
Petjtion dismissed.