This application under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. is filed for quashing of proceedings in the case under section 420/406, P. P. C. pending in the Court of Additional City and Cantonment Magistrate, Quetta. [2] or from Transport Companies on payment of certain charges I acceptable by the parties. The accused, it is alleged, used to run a cloth shop at Quetta.
Sometime prior to the filing of the complaint the accused placed an order for supply of goods from outside Quetta, and when their consignment reached, the com plainant as a Muqaddatn informed them at their shop about this fact. Thereupon*they-had talked amongi themselves and accused No. 1 Muhammad Sharif asked the complainant to go and release the consignment from the Transport Company and by the time he returns, they would release the builty from the Bank which they would hand over to him when he reaches the shop with the cloth. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 left the shop representingFhat they are going to Bank to release the builty. The complainant unsuspectingly released the goods for the accused from the Trans port Company and paid Rs.
1,800 from his own pocket on behalf of the accused. This was dbne due to prior fair dealings between the complainant and thfe accused and thereafter he delivered the consignment to accused' Nos. 1 to 4 who were sitting at then- shop. When the complainant demanded the builty, they said that accused Nos. 2 and'3 had not returned. The complainaht thereafter left the goods with them as trust and the accused agreed and assured him that they would not appropriate the goods1 until his dues of Rs. 1,800 have been paid to him. It is further alleged that on the same day the complainant went to their shop several times to demand1 the payment but the matter was put off till next morning by them. The next morning when he went there and on enquiry it was found that they have run away from Quetta after selling the goods. The complainant took great difficulty in finding their whereabouts. He thereupon filed this criminal complaint under section 406/420, P. P.
C. stating that he has been cheated by the accused persons, as stated above.
3. The Additional City Magistrate, Quetta took cognizance ' of the case, recorded the statements of two witnesses on behalf of the complainant and issued bailable warrants for arrest of the accused on the same day. This order is as under 01*1 Atjals cLLU*-, oho t-ila. t A*l - cSjlsijf' cL-jjlj Aajja jT y> CT r --* " -fA*P
4. The accused it appears successfully avoided the' service of warrants and they moved a Criminal Misc. Application No. 53 of 1968 before the' High Court of the then West Pakistan at Lahore and obtained stay order on 15-1-1968.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants Mr* S. Mahmood, Mr. Muhammad Ahmed Mirza, Advocate- General, Baluchistan for the State and Mr. Zakaullah Lodhi, Advocate for respondent No. 1. The learned counsel for the applicants vehemently argued that the complaint is false and bogus and there was no dealings of the applicants with the com plainant. He further submitted^ that one Abdul Wahid of Lyallpur has connections at Quetta and got this complaint instituted through his friend Mir Abdullah Khan simply to harass the accused persons and he submitted that issuance of warrants of the arrest is a clear abuse of the process of Court, and his clients are afraid that if they may go to Quetta they will surely be inflicted serious injuries and it is very likely that they may be harmed. He further submitted that it is about four years that the case has not proceeded at all and this delay from 1967 to date in the proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of Court and proceedings even on this ground are liable to be quashed.
6. On the other hand Mr. M. A. Mirza, Advocate-General, Baluchistan submitted that at this preliminary stage of investiga tion use of extraordinary powers under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. would amount to stifling of the prosecution. The trial Court has yet to see whether there is a prima facie case or not and this can only be done, it was argued, when the accused persons appear before the Court and get their statements recorded. The trial Court it is submitted has sufficient powers to discharge the accused if there is no case against them. It was further submitted that the accused will have full opportunity under the law to plead their innocence and adduce evidence in their favour before the Court.
7. I see sufficient substance in this argument of the learned Advocate-General whose arguments were adopted by Mr. Zaka- ullah Lodhi, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. For the reasons that it was accused themselves who are a party to delay the proceedings because before the warrants of arrest could be executed against them they moved this Court at Lahore and obtained stay of proceedings order on 15-1-1968. In this view of the matter it cannot be legitimately said that there is any delay either on the part of the trial Court or of the prosecution agency. I am however further supported in my view by a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court reported as Raja Haq Nawaz v. Muhammad Afzal and others (1), wherein their Lordships were pleased to hold that:-- "Quashment of proceedings at so early a stage (at complaint stage) gives an unfortunate impression of stifling of criminal prosecutions, by exercise of an extraordinary power which is given for the dispensation of complete justice, in the forms provided by law. It is necessary that these cases should be examined further to ensure that the course of even-handed justice has not been prejudiced."
As regards to the abuse of process of Court it has been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a case reported as Af. S. Khawaja v. The State (2) wherein it was held that "Abuse, as attracting the inherent power of the Court, must be 'abuse of the process of any Court', and 'the investigation
(l) PLD 1967 SC 354
(2) PLD 1965 SC 287 stage' is, generally speaking, outside the purview of the Court and rarely involves employment of any Court process."
Further : "The ends of justice, to secure which the inherent power may be invoked, have reference to the purposes which the judicial process is intended to secure, and it is difficult to include the actions of investigating agencies within the scope of judicial process."
8. The learned counsel for the applicants, however, submitted that in case the proceedings are not quashed, an order may be passed for expeditious trial of the . case by the learned trial Magistrate, this is a reasonable request. Following the judgments of their Lordships of the Supreme Court I am of the opinion that at this stage the proceedings should not be quashed. The result is that the application stands dismissed. I, however, direct the learned trial Magistrate to dispose of this matter within three months so as to avoid any hardship that may be caused to the applicants/ accused who have to come from outside Province of Baluchistan. . .
I