1. Fazal Rehman lodged an F.I.R. On 19-6-1988 against Mst. Khadiji, petitioner and her son Muhammad Ramzan at Police Station Pir Wadhal Rawalpindi, for offences under section 448/380, P.P.C. The police submitted report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Only under section 498, P.P.C. The petitioner were charge-sheeted for the said offence on 22-10-1988. An application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C.
2. Was moved on their behalf on 27-11-1988 to the effect that no case was made out against them, but this was rejected by the learned Magistrate on 5-1-1989 with a laconic order:- "Application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Stands dismissed."
3. Hence this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For the quashment of proceedings.
4. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioners and the State have been heard while none has appeared, for Fazal Rehman complainant though notice was sent to him in due course. The allegations in the F.I.R.
5. Were that Mst. Khadija Bibi had agreed to sell house standing at Khasra No.159 consisting of two dilapidated rooms, a kitchen with a four walls to him for a sum of Rs.1,00,000, Rs.50,000 were paid in cash at the house and the rest of the amount of Rs.50,000 was received from the encashment of a cheque drawn upon Mercantile Bank Satellite Town, Rawalpindi. As the sale-deed could not be got registered, so a general power of attorney was executed by her on 27-1-1988. Thereafter the version proceeds that on 16-6-1988 the complainant lodged himself in the house and in the morning left the house looking it and keeping a purse with Rs.535 and the documents of the house under his pillow. When he returned at 12 noon he found that the petitioners were in occupation of the house, while his bedding was placed outside Yaqoob was cited as a witness about the transaction of the sale of the house.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that Mst.
6. Khadija Bibi petitioner had filed a civil suit for injunction restraining the complainant from taking forcible possession of the disputed house on 19-6-1988. The allegation in the plaint is that a day before she alongwith her son had been called to the police station and threatened to deliver possession. It is also on the record that the general power of attorney was cancelled by her on 16- 6-1988 i.e. Three days before the lodging of the F.1.R. It, therefore, clearly seems that a matter of civil nature has been converted as a vehicle for criminal A proceedings and this is clearly a misuse of the process of the Court. From the F.I.R. It appears that the complainant had come with his cot and bedding for one night and there is no other evidence except his own assertion as to the delivery of possession to him. However, when pointed out, why revision petition was not filed against the order, the learned counsel drew the attention of the Court to Abdul Rehman and another v. The State and another 1988 P Cr. L J 2208 wherein it was observed that the remedy under section 439, Cr.P.C. Is discretionary and not adequate, meaning thereby, that simultaneously an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Was competent.
7. Since no case could be said to have been made out on the 'bass of the a allegations levelled in the F.I.R., so it seems to be a misuse of the process of the Court, hence the proceeding stand quashed.