This is an application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of proceedings pending against the petitioners under section 379 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code in the Court of Assistant Commissioner, Shakargarh.
2. The proceedings were initiated against t e petitioners on a complaint filed by respondent No. 1.
Petitioner No. 1 was married to Javaid 1qbal alias Muhammad lqbal, son of respondent No. 1. On 23rd July, 1981 petitioner No. 1 filed a suit in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Lahore for the dissolution of her marriage on the grounds inter plia that her husband had been committing violence upon her and that four months earlier he had forcibly turned her out from his house. This suit was still pending when a month later, that is, on 23rd August, 1981 respondent No. I filed a complaint in the Court of the Assistant Commissioner at Shakargarh against the petitioners. In this complaint he alleged that a month earlier, petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4 had come to his house on the pretext of meeting petitioner No. 1. On the following day, they took away petitioner No. 1 with them.
While leaving his house the petitioners committed theft of ear-rings made of one tola of gold, a wrist watch and some clothes belonging to his daughter. When he learnt about the theft he took two persons, namely, Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Maqbool to the house of the petitioners at Lahore and asked for the return of the stolen property. The petitioners promised to return the said property after two weeks but later did not keep their promise. A week before filing the complaint he again went to the house of the petitioners with Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Maqbool and demanded the return of his daughter's property. On this the petitioners became violent, abused him filthily and threatened to kill him.
3. On receipt of the complaint the Assistant Commissioner recorded the statement of respondent No. 1 and then asked S. H. O. Of police Station Shakargarh to hold an inquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The S. H. O. Recorded the statements of reason--dent No. 1 and his son Javaid Iqbal and reported that the allegations made were true. On this the learned Assistant Commissioner summoned the petitioners to stand trial for an offence under section 379 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
4. Before I proceed further I may mention that the petitioners are closely related. Petitioner No. 4 is the father and petitioner No. 3 is the mother of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2.
5. On the face of it the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 appears to be a counter-blast to the suit filed by petitioner No. 1 for the dissolu--tion of her marriage with the son of respondent No. 1. The time of the alleged occurrence is stated to be round about the period when petition. No. 1 filed the civil suit. Now the case of petitioner No. l in her plaint was that she had been thrown out by the son of respondent No. 1 from his house four months earlier. This averment was made much before respondent No. 1 filed his complaint. It can, therefore, hardly be regarded as an afterthought or an attempt to create a defence to the charge of theft. Apart from that it is inconceivable that petitioner No. 1 would seek to break up her home merely to cover up theft of property not worth more than Rs. 4, 000. It is also to be noticed that the main witnesses on the charge of theft are respondent No. 1 and his son. Quite obviously, in view of the civil litigation pending between the parties heir statements alone can hardly be regarded as sufficient to support the said charge.
6. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioners had admitted to have taken away the alleged stolen property in the presence of Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Maqbool. The papers relating to the inquiry held by the S. H. O. Are before me. These papers do not contain the statements of these two witnesses. On the face of it is highly improbable that after the suit for dissolution had been filed the petitioners would admit before any party led by respondent No. 1 that they had stolen the property belonging to his daughter.
7. Taking all these circumstances into consideration I have no doubt in my mind that this complaint has been filed to pressurize petitioner No. 1 to withdraw her suit. It is clearly an abuse of the Process of the Court. Accordingly, I quash the proceedings pending in the Court of the Assistant Commissioner against the petitioners.