1. The daughter of respondent No.2 was married to a son of the applicant. The marriage was not successful and ended in divorce. There was some dispute over dower amount and dowry articles between applicant and their son on the one hand and respondents Nos.2 to 5 and daughter of respondent No.2 on the other hand. Both the parties, at the relevant time were residing within the jurisdiction of Police Station Jauherabad. The Illaqa police initiated proceedings separately against both the parties under section 107/117, Cr.P.C., as there was apprehension of breach of peace. The learned S.D.M. Liaquatabad on the reports of the police issued notices under section 114/112, Cr.P.C.
2. Against both the parties in respective cases. The applicants moved an application before the S.D.M.
3. Liaquatabad requesting for dropping the proceedings against them on the ground that the dispute between the parties with regard to the dower amount and dowry articles is subjudiced before Family Court Judge and the applicants have shifted from the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 6-1-1991 rejected the application but at the same time ordered that in view of change of residence of the applicants, the matter be sent to the District Magistrate, as he had ceased to have jurisdiction in the matter.
4. Without commenting on the merits of the order, it may suffice to point out that the notices, under section 112 were served on the applicants and so also respondents Nos.2 to 5 on 12-4-1991 as pointed out by the learned Advocates, of the parties appearing before me, persaunt to order dated 2-4-1991. Although period of more than one year has expired since the date of issuance of the notices but till now the parties have not acted in any manner prejudicial to the peace and tranquillity of the area. The parties have also now resorted to a proper forum for settlement of their civil disputes.
5. The learned Advocate for the applicants has relied on the case of Chaudhry Muhammad Amjad v.
6. The State reported in 1986, P Cr. L J 78, wherein a learned Judge of this Court had quashed the proceedings on the ground that after expiry of notice period the proceedings had become infructuous.
7. Mr. Abdul Jalil appearing for the applicants has pointed out that the applicant has requested for quashment of the proceeding pending against the applicant as well as the proceeding pending against the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 as the applicant's neither apprehend any danger at the hands of the said respondent, nor intend to pose any threat to them. Mr. Rao M. Shakir Naqshbandi, Advocate for the respondents Nos.2 to 5 has also consented to the quashment of the said proceedings for the same reason.
8. In view of above, this application is allowed and the proceedings that have been sent to the learned District Magistrate Karachi Central, by the S.D.M., Liaquatabad, are hereby quashed.