This is an application by Fazal Karim son of Qasam Ali for the quashment of criminal proceedings in the case title Parveen Akhtar v. Fazal Karim under section 406, P. P. C. read with section 4(3) of the West Pakistan Dowery (Prohibition of Display) Act, 1967, pending against him in the Court of a Magistrate in Gujrat.
2. The facts of the case as stated in the present application briefly are that Fazal Karim petitioner was married to Parveen Akhtar respondent on the 18th of December 1968. After a short span of 7 months however their relations became strained as a result of which he divorced her on the 26th of January 1970.
Mst. Parveen Akhtar filed a complaint against the petitioner under section 406, P. P. C. on the 26th of March 1970 inter alia alleging that the dowery given to her by her parents had been entrusted to the petitioner who misappropriated it and brought it to his own use and that he has refused to return the same (A copy of the complaint is attached as Annex. 'A' with the present ap plication).
The case is pending trial in the Court of Mr. Khurshid- uz-Zaman, Magistrate 1st Class, Gujrat. The evidence has been recorded and the case is stated to be ripe for announcement of judgment.
3. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Mst. Parveen Akhtar respondent has also brought a civil suit against the petitioner for the recovery of the dowery which is pending in the Court of Nafees Ahmad Bajwa, Civil Judge with powers of Family Court Judge, Gujrat. He contends that the liability of the petitioner is only a civil one and that the criminal case has been brought by the respondent only to put pressure on the petitioner, which amounts to an abuse of process of law. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following authorities :--
3.
4. I have also heard the learned State counsel who has Tazal Karim opposed the application. I have carefully considered the jlarveen arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Akhtar The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are ----------- not applicable to the facts of the present case. The relevant Aslam Riaz portion of the first case i.e. (PLD 1962 Pesh. 167) is to be "J found in the paragraph 11 of the judgment which is reproduced below for facility of reference :-- "I am clearly of the view that on the facts stated in the complaint no criminal offence is made out at all and the sole purpose of launching a criminal complaint against the petitioner and his employee was to coerce, harass and humiliate the petitioner "
It is clear from the above-noted paragraph that the criminal proceedings were quashed because the facts alleged in the complaint did not make out a criminal offence.
5. In the second case, namely (PLD 1963 Lah. 481) the complainant had made a statement in the Court that he was primarily interested in the recovery of his dues and that he had resorted the criminal Courts only for that purpose. In view of the above-noted admission by the complainant it was held that the complaint filed by him amounted to an abuse of the process of Court.
The facts alleged against the petitioner in the present case however disclose a prima facie case inasmuch as the complaint contains an allegation of trust. The learned counsel for the petitioner has himself agreed that the allegations made in the complaint constitute an offence under section 406, P. P. C. He however contends that since Mst. Parveen Akhtar respondent has also filed a civil suit on identical grounds it can be reasonably inferred that the criminal case has been filed only to put pressure on the petitioner and coerce him to return the dowery.
It is well settled that if the allegations made against the accused constitute a criminal offence this Court should not quash the proceedings in the trial Court merely because there is possibility of their being false. It is the function of the trial Court to adjudicate upon the merits of the case. To interfere in the case and give a Ending at this stage would amount only to striding the proceedings.
In this view of the matter I am not inclined to quash the proceedings pending in the Court of Mr. Khurshid- ud-Zaman, Magistrate 1st Class, Gujrat.
6. The learned counsel submits next that the proceedings in the criminal Court should be stayed till the decision of the suit with regard to the same subject-matter pending before the civil Court because otherwise the accused (petitioner) is likely to be prejudiced. He submits that in such a case it is the duty of the criminal Court to stay its hands till the civil litigation on the same subject- matter is disposed of as there would be a danger of injustice being done due to conflict in decisions. In support of this contention he relies on Muhammad Akbar v. The State (1).
(1) PLD 1968 SC 281
1. The authority cited by the learned counsel for the peti tioner does not lay down that criminal proceedings must invariably be stayed whenever a civil suit on the same subject- matter is pending. Their Lordships have only laid down guiding principle for the exercise of discretion in such cases. I am in respectful agreement with the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the above-noted case. However I am unable to help the petitioner because he has prayed only for the quashment of the proceedings, and I am not inclined to grant him a relief which he has not sought in this application. I am sure that if he makes an application before the learned trial Magistrate he shall take due notice of the above-noted principle enunciated by the Supreme Court and see whether it is applicable to the facts of the present case. The application is dismissed with these observations. .