1. This is an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For quashment of proceedings pending against the applicant and respondents Nos.3 to 6 under sections 504, 506 and 420/34 before the Civil Judge and F.C.M., Badin.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present application are that complainant Muhammad Soomar/respondent No.2, filed a direct complaint before the learned Civil Judge and F.C.M., inter alia alleging therein that he is businessman and has friendship with the accused. It is further stated in the complaint that he makes car keys, rings and name plates and expensive sceneries. That about a month before the filing of the complaint, the 5 accused including the applicant went to him and purchased goods worth Rs.10,000 from him in presence of P.Ws. Gul Muhammad and Achar Kukar. The accused promised to pay the price of the goods within a week after selling the goods but did not fulfil their promise. After about a week the complainant and witness Sujawal went to Karachi where they came to know that the accused had not yet returned to Karachi.
3. Thereafter, he again went to Karachi alongwith witnesses, and went to the house of applicant Mahboob who refused to pay the price of the goods and misbehaved with him. He also gave him kicks and fists and told him that if he comes for money in future he would be killed. Thereafter, the complainant went to Police Station Badin to lodge report but they kept him on false hopes and ultimately refused to register the case, and therefore, a direct complaint was filed. However, it appears that later on the process was issued against the accused although the learned counsel appearing for the applicant has not produced any document to show whether any preliminary inquiry was held, and what type of process was issued against accused.
4. I have heard the learned Advocate and have gone through the documents. The bare reading of complaint shows that no case under section 420, P.P.C. Is made out and the transaction if any was a civil transaction, and therefore, the accusation under section 420, P.P.C. Appears to be mala fide.
5. As far as offence under sections 504 and 5110, P.P.C. Was concerned, they are alleged to have been committed at Karachi, and therefore, on one hand the learned Civil Judge and F.C.M. Had no jurisdiction to take cognizance against the accused in respect of offence under sections 504 and 506, P.P.C. And on the other hand the said offences had no nexus with the offence under section 420, P.P.C., and therefore, the same could not be tried together, and thus the process issued by the learned Judge was illegal and without jurisdiction. It appears that the learned Judge has not applied his mind to the facts of the case and has issued process mechanically. It was also pointed out by Miss Wajahat Niaz that even prior to this, respondent Muhammad Soomar had filed a similar case against co-accused Tulsi Das and the proceedings were quashed by my learned brother Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo, J. Vide Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.28 of 1988.
6. This brings me to the next important question, because only one accused has come up for quashment of proceedings and the others have been joined as respondents. They have not appeared before the Court today, and therefore, it is to be seen whether the proceedings should be quashed as a whole or only in respect of the present applicant. The facts of the case show that the cases of the two sets of the accursed can be separated and no adverse order is being passed against them, and as such they can have no grievance that they were not heard. 1n this connection reliance is placed on the case of Mst. Hamida v The State and another PLD 1973 Kar 478, wherein Tufail Ali A. Rehman's, CJ. (as his Lordship then was) was pleased to quash proceedings under similar circumstances even against the accused who were neither party to the quashment of proceedings nor any notice was issued against them by the High Court.