1. ' The facts and grounds leading to the filing of this application under section 561-A of Cr.P.C. Are as follows:-- ' On 2-9-1992 Javed Iqbal, respondent No,2 herein, filed a direct complaint under section 107/117 of Cr.P.C. In the Court of S.D.M. Liaquatabad (Central) at Karachi being Complaint No,187 of 1992. It was stated by the complainant Javed Iqbal that he was carrying on video business under the name of Prince Video Centre at Punjabi Colony, F.C. Area, Karachi. The applicants herein had looted video casettes from the shop of complainant and had assaulted the employee Liaquat. Applicants had allegedly threatened the complainant and harassed him and at one occasion had damaged the door of the shop. The applicants are further alleged to have threatened the complainant and his employee of dire consequences. It is in the complaint that the applicants warned the complainant to close the shop else he would be involved in false criminal cases. On account of such conduct of the applicants, complainant allegedly suffered heavy losses in business and he, therefore, filed a direct complaint with prayer to take legal action against the applicants, who are nominated in the complaint as defendants. On 2-9-1992 statement of complainant Javed Iqbal was recorded and on 3-9-1992 statements of Talib Masih and Ilyas were recorded. On the same date i,e. 3-9-1992 the learned A.C. And S.D.M., Liaquatabad, Karachi passed order under section 112 of Cr.P.C. Calling upon the applicants to show cause why they should not execute bond in the sum of Rs,5,000 each to keep peace for a period of one year. Applicants have filed this application and have sought quashment of the said proceedings.
2. ' I have heard the learned Advocate for the applicants and none has appeared for the State or for the respondent No,2/complainant. It is contended by the learned Advocate for the applicants that the information led before the S.D.M. In the form of a direct complaint does not give the date or time on which the applicants had either caused damage to his shop or threatened him with dire consequences. Even in their statements, the witnesses named above had not given particulars about the time and date and in the circumstances no cognizance could have been legally taken nor the order under section 112 of Cr.P.C. Could be passed. The learned Advocate in support of this contention has relied upon Syed ljaz Ali Shah v. Mst. Iqbal Begum PLD 1963 (W.P.) Pesh. 175, where it was held that mere "danger" or "possibility of breach of peace" was not sufficient for demand of surety from the persons complained against or for initiating proceedings under section 107 of Cr.P.C. It was also held that the provisions of section 107 can be invoked only on finding based on legal evidence that breach of peace is imminent or probable. Reliance is also placed on Abdul Karim and another v. The State PLD 1963 (W.P).) Pesh. 233, where it was held that "substance of the information" in section 112 of Cr.P.C. Means particulars indicating grounds on which information of Magistrate is based.
3. ' It is next argued that the order under section 112 of Cr.P.C. Is not in line with the allegations in the complaint but has been passed in a haphazard manner and the same is a nullity in the eyes of law. Reliance in support of this contention is placed on N. Reemes and 2 others v. The State and another 1980 P Cr. L J 126, where a learned Judge of this Court quashed the proceedings under section 107, Cr.P.C. In a case where complainant's own witnesses had alleged no use of force or threat of using force by applicants but had simply alleged apprehension of a big dispute or labour trouble between labour force and the applicants. Order under section 117 of Cr.P.C. Was set aside.
4. ' The learned counsel then argued that even the order under section 112 of Cr.P.C. Could be quashed and in support of such contention the learned Advocate relied upon Mst. Nasreen Begum and 3 others v. Muhammad Younis and another 1975 P Cr. L J 647.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the entire record. The perusal of the complaint filed by the respondent No,2 shows that no date or time of the alleged acts committed by the applicants was mentioned. It is also not shown if there was imminent danger of breach of peace on account of alleged acts of the applicants or that taking cognizance on a direct complaint and passing order under section 112 of Cr.P.C. Was warranted by law. The witnesses examined during preliminary enquiry by the learned S.D.M. Lend no support to the statement of the respondent No,2 himself. The allegations in the complaint are vague and general in nature and the respondent No,2 did not even approach the area police station for the redress of his grievance. No case under section 107 or 117 of Cr.P.C. Was made out and the order under section 112 of Cr.P.C.
6. Passed by the learned S.D.M. Could not be sustained. Continuance of proceedings on the basis of a direct complaint filed by the respondent No,2 would be abuse of the process of the Court. Criminal pending against the short order, Miscellaneous No,928 of 1992 is allowed and the proceedings the applicant are hereby quashed. These are the reasons for dated 1-4-1993.