' Applicants Mian Muhammad Anwar, Mian Muhammad Mukhtar, Muhammad Khurram and respondent Mian Muhammad Waqar are partners in respect of a business running under the name and style of Olympia Silk Mills, Karachi. The parties are related inter se and applicants Mian Muhammad Anwar and Mian Muhammad Mukhtar are real brothers of respondent Mian Muhammad Waqar. Applicant Muhammad Khurram is the son of applicant Mian Muhammad Anwar. The business of the said partnership firm has been closed down for the last few years and both the parties claimed their lawful and peaceful possession to the exclusion of others. It is alleged that in the month of July, 1987, Mian Muhammad Waqar, respondent No,1, in order to forcibly and illegally occupy the premises started a malicious campaign against the applicants by making false reports at Police Station S.I.T.E., Karachi, therein misrepresenting the facts and thereby attempting to harass the applicants. The applicants, therefore, filed civil suit bearing No, 863 of 1987, with the following prayer:-
(i) Declaration that suit premises bearing No,C-43, S.I.T.E., Karachi, is the partnership property and that it is in the prossession of the said partnership firm through its majority share-holders of the Olympia Silk Mills.
(ii) To restrain the defendant No,1, i,e, Mian Muhammad Waqar from illegal and unlawful forcible occupation of the suit premises without due process of law.
2. The applicants also filed an application in the said suit praying therein for temporary injunction and an order of status quo was passed on 2-8-1987. It is alleged that respondent No,1 after suppressing the material facts filed a complaint in the Court of A.C.M. No,1 (West) Karachi, for the offence under section 447/34, P.P.C. Which was brought on regular file on 16-8-1987 and a case under section 448, P.P.C. Was registered against the applicants. It is in these circumstances that the present application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Was filed before this Court for quashment of proceedings.
3. I have heard Mr. M. Akmal Wasim, learned counsel for applicants, Mr. Khawaja Naveed Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent No,1 and Mr. Salman Ansari, learned counsel for State.
4. It is contended on behalf of applicants that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and the respondent No,1 cannot be allowed to satisfy private feelings of revenge by launching criminal prosecution against the applicants who are admittedly partners of Olympia Silk Mills. There is good deal A of force in this contention and I am clear in my mind that a criminal proceeding initiated on a complaint which does not contain any definite accusation of criminal nature amounts to abuse of process of the criminal Courts and is liable to be quashed.
5. As observed in M.M. S.T. Chidambaram Chettier v. Shanmugham Pillai reported in AIR 1938 Mad.
129 the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Can he invoked in a case of this nature. The following observations of Newsam, J. Arc relevant:-- "The inherent jurisdiction of this Court to pass any orders necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court is not questioned and indeed has been clearly expressed in section 561-A, Criminal P.C. Since prevention is always better than cure the obligation to prevent specious and spiteful criminal prosecutions for actions which, though strictly dishonourable, yet do not amount to crime, is one that must never be shirked. In the world of business things are often done which are betrayals of confidence and deceptions which arouse moral indignation but are nevertheless civil wrongs which can be righted by civil Courts and are not crimes which can be punished by a criminal Court. Not every immoral act is criminal and it is an abuse of the process of a Court to attempt to create new crimes in order to compel men to conform to a high standard of probity in business dealings or to force them to execute their promises."
6. This question was also examined in the case of J.S. Daver v. Iqbal Nadir and another reported in PLD 1962 Pesh. 167, and it was held that a complaint disclosing civil liability cannot be made a subject-matter of criminal litigation. At page 171, Faizullah, J. Remarked as follows:-- 'Before I part with the case I would like to make some observations for the benefit of the Magistrates while dealing with private complaints not to allow their judicial conscience to so easily moved as in the instant case by automatically issuing summonses against the accused without carefully scrutinizing the complaint as to whether on the facts stated in the complaint any criminal offence is made out. The Magistrates before issuing processes to the accused in private complaints are under statutory obligation as contemplated by section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code to satisfy themselves 'for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint' and they should never permit civil litigation to be converted into criminal litigation."
7. There are other authoritative decisions on this subject. I may only refer the following reported cases:-- (1)aghunath Puri v. Emperor AIR 1932 Pat. 72; (2)Heywood v. Emperor AIR 1942 Lah. 134; (3)Zafar Niazi v. Riazuddin PLD 1958 Lah. 738; (4)Mahmood-ul-Hassan v. Imtiaz Khan and another PLD 1963 Lah. 481; (5)R.C.P. Guignard v. The State and another PLD 1963 Kar. 868; (6)Hafiz Abdul Khaliq Rahmani v. Abdul Chani and another PLD 1970 Kar. 446, and (7)Abdul Rashid v. Moinuddin and another 1972 P Cr. L J 724.
8. The powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Are to be exercised sparingly but if the High Court is satisfied that the proceedings are an abuse of the process of the Court, the powers should be exercised with a view to protect the innocent persons from undue harassment.
9. For the reasons given above, I accept this application made under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. And direct the quashment of proceedings pending against the applicants in the Court of A.C.M. No,1 (West), Karachi, for the offence under section 448, P.P.C.