' Facts necessary for decision of this case are in brief given below :- ' Mst. Tasleem petitioner No, 1 was married to Inayat Ullah respondent No, 2 (complainant) on 25-8- 1976. A son, Mohsin Inayat, now aged about 5 years was born out of the wedlock. The spouses could not live happily. In the year 1984 Mst. Tasleem Begum took up residence with her father. She filed a suit for maintenance which was decreed by Chairman Union Council Ballanwala on 6-11-1985 directing Inayat Ullah respondent No, 2 to pay her maintenance at the rate of Rs, 500 per month Mst. Tasleem Begum filed another suit for dissolution of her marriage which was decreed on 29-5- 1986 by Judge Family Court, Sialkot. Her third suit for recovery of Rs, 5,000 on account of her dower was also decreed on 29-5-1986. Mst. Tasleem Begum filed another suit against Inayat Ullah claiming maintenance for her son Mohsin Inayat. This suit was also decreed on 29-5-1986. She filed application for execution of the decrees.
' On 2-8-1986, i. e. After about 2 months of the passing of the above-mentioned decrees, Inayat Ullah respondent No, 2 filed a criminal complaint under sections 379, 406 and 420, P.P.C. Against Mst. Tasleem Begum, her brothers Muhammad Saleem, Ansar and Muhammad Arshad her mother Mst. Maqsooda Begum, her father Muhammad Yaqub and one Muhammad Saleem in the Court of Mr. Atta Muhammad Jugg, Magistrate, Daska, District Sialkot. It was stated by Inayat Ullah in complaint that Mst. Tasleem Begum lived with him happily till the year 1984 and that a son named Mohsin Inayat was born during the wedlock. He alleged in the complaint that during the days when Mst. Tasleem Begum was living in his house accused 2 to 7 (now petitioners 2 to 7) came to his house in village Wan Tehsil Daska. They purchased three buffaloes from him for Rs, 18,000. They paid the price but on the next day again came to his house and asked him to pay them Rs, 18,000 as they were in urgent need of money. He paid Rs, 18,000 to the accused. It was further alleged that a few days thereafter the accused 2 to 7 again visited him in his house and demanded Rs, 60,000 more which also were paid by him to them. He concluded that the accused have not returned back the sum of Rs, 78,000 to him ; that they have misappropriated the money received by them from him and that Mst. Tasleem Begum while leaving his house had stolen the gold ornaments belonging to him.
' The learned Magistrate after recording preliminary evidence summoned the accused-petitioners to face trial on the abovesaid charges.
2. Mst. Tasleem Begum and other accused filed this petition for quashment of criminal proceedings in the complaint on the grounds firstly, that Khalid Nawaz Magistrate First Class, Sialkot was married to a daughter of Inayat Ullah complainant who manoeuvred to get the accused- petitioners summoned in this case with mala fide. Secondly that Inayat Ullah respondent No, 2 filed the complaint on 2-8-1986 with mala fides as counterblast to various decrees passed in favour of Mst. Tasleem Begum and finally that even if the facts in the complaint are admitted as correct then also it was purely a case of civil nature.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. A perusal of the complaint would show that it was an ambiguous document. It is not stated in this complaint as to on what date the amounts of Rs, 18,000 and Rs, 60,000 respectively were paid by complainant to the accused. There is no receipt showing the sale of three buffaloes to the accused by the complainant. There is a general allegation that the amount was paid by the complainant to the accused. It is not stated specifically as to which of the accused was handed over the entire amount. It is not the case of the complainant in the complaint that the amount was divided and paid separately to the accused. According to his own showing the complainant received Rs, 18,000 as price of the three buffaloes and that he paid Rs, 18,000 and Rs, 60,000 to the accused because they were in need of money. It, therefore, appears that if at all the allegations contained in the complaint are correct then also the amount was paid as loan and not as a trust. The alleged payment was made in the c year 1984 but in spite of that the matter was not agitated by inayat Ullah till the filing of the present complaint on 2-8-1986. He also did not set up any counter-claim against the accused while defending various suits against him filed by Mst. Tasleem Begum. It is surprising and seems highly improbable that on every occasion all family members visited the house of complainant firstly to purchase buffaloes, secondly, to get Rs, 18,000 and thirdly to receive Rs, 60,000. The complaint in my view was filed by Inayat Ullah respondent No, 2 to pressurize the accused to settle family disputes. The Magistrate, apparently, issued process against the accused without proper application of mind. The proceedings against accused-petitioners are, therefore, abuse of the process of law and are accordingly ordered to be quashed. This petition is accepted and stands disposed of.