Ali Khan, the respondent No. 1 is the husband of Mst. Rehana, the applicant No.5. The rest of the applicants are closely related to applicant No.5. After the marriage Mst. Rehana, the applicant No.5 resided with All Khan, the respondent No. 1 at Karachi, where she was not treated properly and it is the case of the applicants that on account of differences she had been residing with applicants Nosa and 3 who are her parents. There was no effort on the part of respondent No.1 to bring about settlement and consequently on 9-2-1991 the applicant No.5 filed a suit for dissolution of her marriage against respondent No.1 in the Court of Family Judge, Sanghar. The respondent No.1 avoided the service of summons and m order to counteract he filed a direct complaint against all the applicants before A.C.M. No.IV (East) Karachi for the offence under section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. On 29-7-1991 the case was brought on regular file and bailable warrants were issued against all the applicants. On 17-8-1991 the applicants appeared late before the Magistrate, whereupon non-bailable warrants were issued against them. It is in these circumstances that the applicants have invoked the inherent Jurisdiction of this Court by filing an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Seeking the quashment of proceedings pending against them in the Court of A.C.M. IV (East) Karachi.
2. I have heard Mr. Amir Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for applicants and Mr. S.Z.A. Qureshi, learned counsel for State. The latter has supported the prayer of the applicants made for the quashment of proceedings pending against them under section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 in the Court of A.C.M. (East) Karachi.
3. The perusal of the record shows that the complaint out of which this application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Has arisen was filed with a view to put pressure upon the applicants so that the applicant No. 5 may not pursue the suit for dissolution of marriage filed bye her against respondent No.1 in the Court of Family Judge, Sanghar. According to the complaint filed by respondent No.1 the alleged incident took place on 8-6-1988 but the complaint against the applicants was fled on 27- 7-1991 after more than three years and that too after the applicant No.5 had filed a suit for dissolution of her marriage against respondent No.1. It is unfortunate that the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the applicants on such a complaint which on the face of it appears to be frivolous. A matrimonial dispute was in fact turned into criminal prosecution which in fact amounts to abuse of the process of law. During the course of arguments Mr. Amir Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for applicants has placed on record a copy of the judgment passed in Family Suit No.8.Of 1991, by which the marriage between applicant No.5 and respondent No. 1 was dissolved. My attention has also been invited to the cases of Syed Agha Hussain Naqvi v. Syed Manzoor Hussain Shah Subzwari and another reported in 1983 P Cr. L J 2235, Syed Arshad Ali and another v. Navid Raza and 2 others reported in 7984 P Cr. L J 585, Mst. Zohran Bibi v. Jamal Din and another reported in 1985 P Cr. L J 1518 and Ch. Muhammad Ashraf v. The State reported in 1900, P Cr. L J 347, which arc relevant to the point in issue.
4. In the last cited judgment this Court has made the following observations:-- "Though ordinarily the High Court will not interfere at an interlocutory stage of a criminal proceeding in a subordinate Court, it will certainly interfere in order to prevent the harassment of a person who is prosecuted on a charge which on the face of its is groundless. The test to be applied is to see whether the allegations even if taken at their face value do not constitute an offence as alleged. The circumstances enumerated above call for an interference by this Court to prevent the abuse of process of law."
5. In the result the application made under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. By the applicants is accepted and the proceedings pending against them in the Court of A.C.M. No.IV. (East) Karachi under section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, are hereby quashed.
H.B.T./A-1233/K