1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.---This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of East Pakistan at Dacca in Criminal Revision No. 505 of 1966 dated the 30th April 1969.
2. By this judgment, the application of the appellant for quashment of the proceedings was dismissed by a Division Bench of the said High Court.
3. Mst. Jarina is the younger sister of complainant Mst. Rahiman--nessa. She was brought up by her elder sister and was employed as a maid-servant in the house of the appellant. On the 5th November 1965, Mst. Rahimannessa filed a complaint in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Feni, against the appellant under sections 366 and 344 of the Pakistan Penal Code alleging that the girl Mst. Jarina is being wrongfully confined and she is not being allowed by the appellant to return to her sister. The case was sent to the Officer-m-Charge Parashuram for inquiry and report. The report of the police was against the complainant. A Naraji petition was filed against the police report and Case No. 948/2-T of 1965 was started on which the judicial inquiry was ordered on the 1st January 1966. On the 24th March 1966, the complainant was absent and the case was dismissed under section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On the 26th March 1966, another complaint was filed by Mst. Rahimannessa and a judicial inquiry was ordered. The learned Magistrate having failed to make up his mind referred the case to Mr. M. P. Barua, Magistrate II Class for inquiry. The learned Magistrate on the 6th May 1966, found a prima facie case under section 344 of the Pakistan Penal Code against the appellant and recommended issue of summons to him. This report came up for consideration before Mr. A. Z. Khan, the then Sub-Divisional Magistrate who dis--missed the case on the 12thMay 1966, under section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that the complainant was unable to maintain the case and that from the record a very flimsy prima facie case was found.
4. The complainant filed a revision against this order before the learned Sessions Judge, Noakhali.
5. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the motion on the 29th July 1966, with the following remarks :- -- "Seen the report of the Enquiring Officer and the evidence recorded by the Enquiring Officer. The evidence shows that Pagla Darbesh against whom prosecution has been made has married the girl Jarina. So the learned Sub-Divisional Officer was perfectly justified in dismissing the complaint."
6. Thereafter, the complainant, on the 21st August 1966, sent a telegram to the Deputy Commissioner, Noakhali. This telegram was sent to the local police, who, after enquiry, submitted charge-- sheet under sections 344 and 376, P. P. C. The appellant moved the High Court for the quashment of the proceedings in the above-mentioned revision petition. His grievance is that the complainant has been harassing him for the purpose of black-- mail, although it has been held by the Sessions Judge that Mst. Jarina was married by the appellant on the 28th August 1965, and there is a registered Kabinnama in evidence of the said marriage. The High Court dismissed the quashment application on the ground that there was no satisfactory evidence about the marriage of Mst.
7. Jarina with the appellant. This order is being challenged in this appeal before us.
8. Mr. Ataur Rahman Khan, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that repeated criminal proceedings had been taken against the appellant on the same allegation by the complainant and the only purpose appears to be to black-mail the appellant. According to the learned counsel this amounts to an abuse of the process of Court and the High Court should have quashed the proceedings. In reply, Mr. Shahabuddin learned counsel for the State has contended that the complaint against the appellant is based on well founded ground that the High Court has observed that the evidence about the marriage of the appellant is very shaky and that in such circumstances it cannot be said that the enquiry pending against the appellant amounts to harassing. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has cited the cases of Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan and. Others (PLD1967SC317), Raja Haq Nawaz v: Muhammad Afzal and others (PLD1967SC354) and Raja Haq Nawaz v. Subedar Sakhi Muhammad and others (1968 SCMR 1256). In the first mentioned case, it was held as under :- "If, in fact, an offence had been committed justice required that it should be enquired into and tried.
9. If the respondents are not guilty they have a right to be declared as honourably acquitted by a competent Court. On the other hand, 1f the evidence against the respondents discloses a prima facie case then justice clearly requires that the trial should proceed according to law. The mere fact that a long period has expired since the initiation of proceedings is no ground for quashing the criminal proceeding."
10. I have considered the contentions of both the parties and I am satisfied that the learned Judges of the High Court were perfectly justified in dismissing the quashment proceedings. There is evidence on the record to show that a male child has been born to Mst. Jarina. It is not clear under what circumstances this child has been born. It is also to be investigated whether the appellant has committed an offence under sections 376 and 344 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The allegation against the appellant requires consideration. In these circumstances I do not consider this a fit case for interference. I would, therefore, dismiss the appeal and direct that the record of the case be sent down expeditiously so that criminal enquiry may proceed against the appellant at an early date.
11. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.----I agree.
12. M. R. KHAN, J.----I agree.