A daughter of the petitioner was married to a son of the respondent in 1976. The husband died in 1980 and disputes have arisen between the parties since theft relating to the dowry and dower of the wife. Two suits were instituted in that regard-and they are pending at Lahore since 19 March, 1981 and 12th February, 1981 respectively. The respondent has been served and has since been appearing in those suits. The present Criminal Miscellaneous petition has arisen out of a complaint dated 2nd July, 1981 made by the respondent in the Court of a Magistrate against the petitioner for prosecuting the petitioner under section 500 of the P.P.C. After preliminary evidence the petitioner has been summoned by the trial Court but he has not yet appeared.
2. The case for the petitioner is that the criminal prosecution has been launched by way of a complaint by the respondent as a counter--blast to the civil suits filed by the petitioner. He has also stated that the basis of the complaint is a letter of 5th September, 1980 written by the petitioner to one Sabir Ali Shah, a religious leader seeking his intercession in the dispute. This letter had been written long before the Civil suits and has been made the basis of the complaint under section 500, P. P. C. After a delay of about seven months which according to the learned counsel has not satisfactorily been explained. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued on the other hand, that the civil litigation between the parties is a matter which will be determined on its own merits but the annoyance caused to the respondent for a defamatory letter written to Sabir Ali Shah cannot be remedied except through criminal prosecution. As to the delay it has been submitted that the letter wasth brought to the notice of the respondent only recently and thus there was no delay in filing a complaint.
3. A copy of the complaint has been placed on the file. According to paragraph 12 of the complaint referred to, the letter addressed to Sabir Ali Shah was given to the complainant/respondent only recently but no date has been given. But this to my mind is not a satisfactory explanation of a delay of nearly seven months. This delay becomes crucial in the background of the suits. As stated above, the letter was written on 6th September, 1980, the suits were instituted in February, 1981 and March, 1981 and the complaint was made on 2nd July, 1981. As to the motive behind the present complaint there could be no doubt that this is only a counterblast to the Civil suits instituted by the petitioner against the respondent. The complaint can only be termed as an attempt to put pressure on the petitioner to desist from prosecuting his suits. This will be an abuse of the process of the Court and cannot be permitted.
5. The result of the above discussion is that this petition is allowed and the proceedings before the trial Court are quashed.