' RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.---This is an appeal by Muhammad Siddiq and others, appellants, against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 21-3-1990 rejecting their quashment petition.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 13-3-1989 Mst. Badar Munir respondent No,1 filed a private complaint against Muhammad Siddiq and others, present appellants, wherein she alleged that a case vide F.I.R. No,212/88 was registered against the appellant Nasir Ahmad alias Bhap under section 436/307, P.P.C. And on 1-3-1989 it was fixed for trial in the Court of Magistrate Section 30, Lahore. The appellant Nasir Ahmad alias Bhap was in police custody and attended the Court. The complainant accompanied by her daughter Salma Sultana was also present in Court to pursue their case. The Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 15-3-1989. The appellant Nasir alias Bhap in police custody hurled abuses on the complainant and her daughter aforementioned. The complainant and her daughter reached Bus-stop Saddar Chowk, Lahore Cantt. And boarded the bus. In the meantime appellants Nazir Ahmad, Manzoor Ahmad and Shabbir Ahmad followed them and got into the same bus and occupied seats behind the complainant. Appellants Nazir Ahmad, Shabbir Ahmad and Manzoor Ahmad pressed the complainant and her daughter to withdraw the criminal case, but the complainant did not agree.
The above-named appellants therefore extended threats, using indecent language against them, but through intervention of other passengers the matter was hushed up. In the meanwhile, the bus reached the Bus-stop of Mustafa Abad and the complainant and her daughter got down from the bus, who were followed by the above-named three appellants. After covering a short distance when complainant and her daughter were heading towards their house, the appellants Muhammad Siddiq and Maqsood emerged there and asked the complainant as to wherefrom she was coming. The complainant did not reply, but appellants Nazir Ahmad, Shabbir and Manzoor Ahmad used improper language against the complainant and her daughter. It is alleged that appellants Maqsood and Siddiq exposed themselves and became naked while passing the remarks that complainant and her daughter can do no harm to them. In the meantime, P.Ws.
Khawar and Khalid came there and the complainant and her daughter reached their house. The appellants issued threats to the complainant and her daughter with dire consequences.
3. On institution of the complaint, the learned trial Magistrate recorded preliminary evidence of the complainant, her daughter and her two real brothers Khalid and Khawar and took cognizance of the matter vide his order dated 7-11-1989 and issued non-bailable warrants against the appellants.
4. The appellants filed a petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment before the High Court, which was rejected. The appellants thereupon petitioned this Court for leave to appeal, which leave was granted to consider the question whether the complaint was not false as found by the police and whether Muhammad Siddiq appellant No,1 was not present in Lahore, but in Rawalpindi when the alleged occurrence took place.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, the complainant and the State and have perused the record. From the nature of the complaint and the preliminary evidence recorded a prima facie case clearly stands made out against Nazir Ahmad, Muhammad Shabbir, Nasir Ahmad alias Bhap and Manzoor Ahmad appellants 3 to 6 and therefore, the question of quashing the complaint case against them does not arise. As regards the involvement of Muhammad Siddiq and Maqsood Ahmad appellants 1 and 2, the report of the Assistant Sub- Inspector of the Police Station suggests that appellants 1 and 2 being related to the other accused and assisting them in the defence of their case, their names have been included so that they may be disabled from assisting them. The certificate of the Superintendent, Civil Branch, Supreme Court, Rawalpindi, dated 5-4-1989 also shows that Muhammad Siddiq appellant No,1 was present in office at Rawalpindi on 1-3-1989 and remained on duty from 8-30 a.m. To 3-30 p.m. There are reasonable grounds to believe that Muhammad Siddiq and Maqsood Ahmad appellants 1 and 2 have been falsely roped in, to prevent them from C assisting the other appellants in the defence of the case.
The complaint case against them deserves to be quashed.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is accepted, and the complaint case filed by Mst. Badar Munir respondent against Muhammad Siddiq and Maqsood Ahmad appellants 1 and 2 is quashed, whereas the case against Nazir Ahmad, Muhammad Shabbir, Nasir Ahmad alias Bhap and Manzoor Ahmad appellants 3 to 6 shall proceed in the normal course.