The case has been called out. The learned counsel for the petitioners is absent. The learned counsel for the respondent is however, present. The petitioner's counsel is said to have left for Multan to attend to a Session case. Mr. Rabnawaz Khan Niazi, Advocate has appeared on his behalf to request for an adjournment. I am afraid this is not good ground for the grant of adjournment.
The weekly list of the cases, fixed in the High Court, is issued on every Saturday. The learned counsel must therefore have noticed last Saturday that the present case has been fixed before me for today, yet he chose to leave, yesterday, for Multan, completely disregarding his duty towards his client and also towards this Court, in the present case. The dates in Sessions cases are also fixed in advance and the proper thing on the part of the learned counsel would have been to seek an adjournment either through the office or by making an application to this Court well in advance of the date of hearing. I, therefore, disallow the request for adjournment and proceed to hear this case on merits.
2. This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Revision No. 26 of 1973, as also Criminal Misc. Nos. 40/Q- 73 and 28/T- of 1973 as they arise out of the same facts. Criminal Revision No. 26 of 1973 has been filed by Hassan Bux etc. Against the order dated 2-10-1972 passed by Ch. Waheedullan Goraya, M. I.
C., Multan whereby he summoned the petitioners on a complaint filed by Ghulam Mustafa respondent, under section 406/420, P. P. C.
Criminal Misc. No. 40/Q of 1973, is a petition under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. Filed by Ghulam Mustafa petitioner (against Mst. Bakht Bhari etc.) for the quashment of the case filed by the latter against him.
3. The facts giving rise to this petition (i.e. Criminal Misc. No. 40/Q-73) are as follows:- Mst. Bakht Bhari respondent No. 1 has filed a complaint under sections 166, 167, 466, 469, 471 and 474, P. P. C. Read with section 109, P. P. C. Against the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 8, which is pending in the Court of Ch. Muhammad Azam, Special Judge, Anti---Corruption, Multan. The allegations in the complaint are that Mst. Bakht Bhari was married to Hassan Bux since a long time and had two children out of the wed-lock, i.e. One son Muhammad Iqbal aged 24/25 years and one daughter Mst. Safia aged 21/22 years. About 2/3 years ago Ghulam Mustafa accused/petitioner got acquainted with Hassan Bux and developed friendly relations with him so much so that he and his co-accused came to have visiting terms with Hassan Bux and his wife Mst. Bakht Bhari. Ghulam Mustafa accused/petitioner asked for the band of their daughter. Mst. Safia through his relatives i.e. Accused-respondents Nos. 2 to 5. But the parents of the girl refused the request. It so happened that Mst. Bakht Bhari wanted to visit some sacred places and wished to get a passport for that purpose. She mentioned), his to Ghulam Mustafa whereupon he told her that he as well as his relatives, accused---respondents Nos. 3 to 5 also wanted to go out for the same purpose and were getting their passports made and that Mst. Bakht Bhari's passport shall also be got made by them.
He represented to her that a very close friend of his was posted at Muzaffargarh as a Passport Officer and if she wanted to get her passport made, she would have to go with him to Muzaffargarh. As a result Mst. Bakht Bhari accompanied the accused/petitioner and accused Nos.
3 to 5, to Muzaffargarh, where she was made to thumb-mark some papers and she was told that these were to be used for making an application for obtaining the passport. But, as a matter of fact, they had forged a fictitious nikahnama showing that Mst. Bakht Bhari bad entered into a nikah with Ghulam Mustafa. They also prepared a statement purporting to be that of Mst. Bakbt Bhari, wherein she has supposed to have stated that her husband Hassan Bux had divorced her 13/14 years earlier; that she wanted to enter into another marriage and that she had obtained Fatwas from Mufti Muhammad Ishaq and Mufti Muhammad Abdullah, for that purpose. Thereafter Ghulam Mustafa accused /petitioner is said to have sent a message to Mst. Bakbt Bhari that he had got a nikahnama showing her to be his wife; that either she and her husband should give their daughter Mst. Safia in marriage to him or else he would defame and scandalise them on the basis of the said nikahnama; lower them in the eyes of the public and involve them in false cases. Mst. Bakht Bharr thereupon filed the above-noted criminal complaint against Ghulam Mustafa and his seven associates in the crime. The complaint was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Multan presumably because Gbulam Mustafa accused/petitioner is a public servant.
4. Ghulam Mustafa has alleged in Criminal Misc. No. 40/Q-73 that Mst. Bakht Bhari has also filed a civil suit for declaration that she is the wife of Hassan Bux and that her alleged nikahnama with Ghulam Mustafa (petitioner) was fabricated as a result of cheating, fraud and conspiracy and therefore, void and ineffective. He has prayed that the criminal complaint filed by Mst. Bakht Bhari should be ordered to be stayed till the disposal of the civil case. It is contended on his behalf that since the criminal case as well as the civil suit are based on the same facts, there is a reasonable) possibility of conflicting judgments and it would therefore be appropriate to stay the criminal case till the civil suit is decided. In support of this contention he relies on Muhammad Akbar v. State (PLD 1968 SC 28).
5. I have gone through both the criminal complaint and the plaint in the civil suit, which have now been placed on the file. I notice that both of these shall require a finding on the same question of fact. Therefore respectfully following the above-noted authority, I accept Criminal Misc. No. 40/Q-/3 and order that the criminal case pending before the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Multan, be stayed till the decision of the civil suit filed by Mst. Bakht Bhari.
6. I now take up Criminal Revision No. 26 of 1973. 7 his petition is filed by Hassan Bux, the husband of Mst. Bakht Bhari and is directed against the order of Ch. Waheedullah Goraya, M. I. C., Multan, dated 2-10-1972 where--by the said Magistrate has summoned Hassan Bux and other accused persons in a complaint under section 406/420, P. P. C. Filed by Ghulam Mustafa.
The facts briefly are that Ghulam Mustafa filed a complaint against Mst. Bakht Bhari, her husband Hassan Bux, her sons Muhammad Iqbal, her daughter Mst. Safia and one Fazal Din. The allegations in that complaint briefly are that in connivance with each other Mst. Bakht Bhari had represented to Ghulam Mustafa that she had obtained divorce from her husband Hassan Bux; that she wanted to contract a second marriage and that she had deceived him into marrying her but, subsequently, it transpired that she was already a married woman. After recording the preliminary evidence, the learned trial Magistrate summoned Mst. Bakht Bhari etc. Hassan Bux and his son Muhammad Iqbal have filed the present petition praying that these proceedings be quashed as the complaint and the evidence on the record do not disclose any criminal offence.
Having gone through the complaint I am not inclined to grant the request. The contents of the complaint as well as the preliminary evidence does prima facie disclose the commission of a criminal offence and the learned Magistrate was justified in issuing process against the accused in that complaint. It is quite possible that this complaint is nothing but a counter--blast against the complaint filed by Mst. Bakht Bhari against Ghulam Mustafa and his relatives, but it is for the trial Court to come to such a conclusion after duly recording the evidence. I therefore, see no reason to quash the proceedings. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed. It is however, directed that the hearing of this case be stayed till the decision of the civil suit filed by Mst. Bakht Bhari, in relation to the alleged nikah between her and Ghulam Mustafa, so that there is no danger of conflicting judgments.
7. I now take up Criminal Misc. No. 28/T of 1973. This is an apple--cation by Muhammad Iqbal under section 526, Cr. P. C. For the transfer of a complaint case filed by Ghulam Abbas (a brother of Ghulam Mustafa respondent in Criminal Revision No. 26/73), against him and his parents etc. Under section 406/420, P. P. C. Which is pending in the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate, Mianwali, to some other Court of competent jurisdiction at. Multan. As is apparent from what has been stated above in relation to Criminal Misc. No. 40/Q-73 and Criminal Revision No. 26/73, the parties have filed complaints against each other in connection with the alleged Nikah between Mst. Bakht Bhari and Ghulam Mustafa at Multan. According to Muhammad Iqbal (petitioner in the Cr. M. 28/T of 1973), Ghulam Mustafa manoeuvred to file another complaint under section 406/420 against Muhammad Iqbal petitioner, his mother Mst. Bakht Bhari and his sister Mst. Safia through his real brother Ghulam Abbas (respondent in this transfer application), in the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate, Mianwali. The trial Magistrate issued summons to them in this case. The petitioner and his mother and sister showed their inability to attend the Court at Mianwali, as Ghulam Mustafa had openly threatened them and their lives were there-- fore in danger in that district. They informed the learned trial Magistrate about it telegraphically but he did not accept this plea and issued bailable warrants against them. It is stated in the transfer application that Ghulam Mustafa and his 'brother Ghulam Abbas are influential persons of Mianwali and the petitioners apprehend that they shall not be safe in that town specially when tyro of them are ladies. It is therefore, prayed that in the interest of justice, the complaint filed by Ghulam Abbas be transferred from Mianwali to some competent Court in Multan.
8. From the history of the case as given above, I feel that there is considerable substance in this contention and considering the enmity between Ghulam Mustafa and his brother on the one side and Mst. Bakht Bhari and her daughter etc, on the other the petitioner's apprehension appears to be genuine. I feel that in the circumstances of this particular case it would be expedient in the interest of justice that all the complaints be tried by the same Court at Multan. This case is therefore transferred to the Court which is seized of the complaint filed by Ghulam Mustafa against the petitioner and his family. It is also directed in the interest of justice that all the three complainants i.e. (I) the one filed by Mst. Bakht Bhari, (2) the one filed by Ghulam Mustafa and (3) the one filed by Ghulam Abbas, be heard together.
This disposes of Criminal Misc. No. 40/Q-73, Criminal Revision No. 26 of 1973 and Criminal Misc. No. 28/T of 1973.