1. This application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Seeks quashment of criminal proceedings pending against the applicants in the Court of Additional City Magistrate, Naushehro Feroze under sections 325/323, 34, P.P.C.
2. The facts of the prosecution case are that on 21-2-1986 at 1-00 hours respondent Ranjho lodged F.I.R. At Police Station, Naushehro Feroze, District Nawabshah. The case was registered under sections 325/323, 34, P.P.C. As Crime No. 264/86. Ranjho in his F.I.R. Stated that applicant Mir Muhammad and others filed false suit in the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Naushehro Feroze and he was asked to declare himself as their Hari to which he refused. It is alleged that Mir Muhammad and his sons Aijaz and Atur Khaskheli came in the street and threw pieces of brick at his house which resulted in the injuries to Razi, his mother and father. The incident was witnessed by Nazar Muhammad and Saifal. Police after usual investigation challaned the case.
3. Applicants who are accused filed an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. In the trial Court which was dismissed being premature.
4. Mr. Ali Nawaz Dahraj appearing for the applicants contended that S applicants filed civil suit and due to that grievance this case has been filed and, there exits recorded enmity between the parties over the land. It is contended by the learned counsel that injuries according to the medical certificate in respect of Nazar Muhammad are 24 hours old and, therefore, this is a false case. He has referred to the cases reported in PLD 1969 Pesh. 137, 1980 P Cr. L J 1003, 1981 P Cr. L J 1336, 1986 P Cr. L J 503 and 1983 SCMR 775.
5. Mr. Ahmed Khan Barakzai appearing for respondent No. 2 complainant submitted that as many as four persons received injuries and F.I.R. Was lodged immediately. The case has not proceeded. It is argued that it is a broad daylight incident and complainant came with true facts and has not exaggerated the account of incident. He has referred to the cases reported in 1986SCMR303, 1980SCMR57and 1980SCMR311.
6. Mr. Sanaullah, appearing for the State does not support the quashment. He stated that this is a question of fact which is to be considered on the basis of evidence and it is no stage for the quashment.
7. I have gone through the authorities cited by the learned counsel. In case of Shoukat Hayat v. The State 1981 P Cr. L J 1336 proceedings were quashed where 60 persons were summoned on the complaint whereas injured witness before the Magistrate had implicated only six persons and contradicted the version as given by the complainant. Therefore, this case has no application to the facts of the present case. In other case of 1986 P Cr.
1. J 503 the version given by the complainant was falsified by his own statement on oath. In the cases referred to by the learned counsel for the applicant decided by the Supreme Court the facts are not consistant with the present case.
8. No doubt this Court has the jurisdiction to consider' the quashment but the powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Are only intended to prevent the abuse of process of the Court but not to stifle prosecution. In the present case after investigation and on receipt of medical certificates applicants were challaned. On this I refer to the case of Marghoob Alam: and another v. Shamas Din and another 1986 SCM R 303 where the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the order of the High Court whereby the quashment of the proceedings was not allowed and observed that the powers of the High Court for the quashment are only to prevent abuse of process of Court. In the present case there is nothing except alleged enmity. In the case of Muhammad Nawaz for Muhammad Ahsan v. Haji Muhammad Khan and another reported in 1980 SCMR 57 the Honourable Judge did not interfere with the order of Peshawar High Court whereby petition for quashment was dismissed on the ground that no evidence was recorded and held that respective stands of the parties could not be put to test in quashment. In case of Abdur Rahman v. Hayat Khan etc. Reported in 1980 SCMR 311 it was held that disputed questions of fact can only be decided after recording of evidence.
9. Upshot of above discussion is that in the present case there are as many as four injured persons who were examined by the doctor and prima facie case was made out during the investigation, therefore, this application at this stage is premature as such application having no merits' is dismissed.
10. S.A./M-88/K Quashment refused.