1. ' The facts leading to this application for quashment of the proceedings pending before the Resident Magistrate, Tando Adam, are that the respondent Khudadino filed a direct complaint in the Court of Resident Magistrate, Tando Adam, in the following words :- "It is prayed before this Hon'ble Court as under :-
(1) That I am a Law abiding citizen of Pakistan and residing within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
(2) That on 25-6-1973 I entrusted Rs, 30,000 (thirty thousand) to Hyderali Buhra of Hyderabad through a promissory note on demand.
(3) That after three months I went to Hyderabad and demanded my Rs, 30,000 which he promised to pay on the next week.
(4) That yesterday on 11-10-1973 I again went to Hyderabad alongwith one Loung son of Muhammad Ali, and met the accused at Sind Cloth Store Hyderabad where at that time Mr. Seth Warandmal was also sitting. I demanded money, but the accused flatly refused to pay the amount and further told that he has invested the amount and now unable to pay. But when I again forced him, he said that I should go away and do what should I like, hence this complaint.
2. ' It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to proceed against the accused according to law as he has misappropriated the amount entrusted to the accused through promissory note of dated 25-6-1973."
3. ' On the basis of this complaint, the Resident Magistrate, Tando Adam, after recording the statement of the complainant issued process against the applicant by ordering bailable warrants in the sum of Rs, 5,000. In response to the process issued, the applicant appeared before the Court on 2-11-1973. Thereafter no progress was made in the case for six months as, according to the applicant, complainant Khudadino avoided appearance before the Court with a view to cause harassm ent to the applicant and the applicant having no alternative filed this application for quashing the proceedings.
4. ' Mr. A. K. Holepoia, the learned counsel for the applicant contended that the proceedings initiated by the complainant against the applicant amount to abuse of the process of Court inasmuch as the facts stated in the complaint even if accepted to be correct do not disclose an offence under section 406, P. P. C. Or any other criminal offence. Secondly, that the facts stated in the complaint, even if admitted for the sake of argument, at best, disclose a dispute of civil nature between the parties and that this circumvented criminal prosecution had been filed against him only to enforce what patently is a civil liability, if any.
5. ' Both the contentions of the learned counsel are well founded. The process has been issued against the applicant for an offence under section 406, P. P. C. For committing criminal breach of trust. Section 405, P. P. C. Defines criminal breach of trust as under :- "Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property or with any dominion over property, dishonestly mis-appropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property, in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he was made touching the discharge of trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust'."
6. ' It will be seen that the main ingredient of the section is entrustment of the property for a purpose and its dishonest misappropriation or its dishonest disposal in violation of direction of prescribing the mode in which the trust is to be discharged or of any legal contract, expressed or implied, touching the discharge of trust. Bare scrutiny of the complaint would, however, show that the complainant had neither disclosed the purpose for which the amount 4 was entrusted nor does it also mention that the same was to be disposed of according to any contract or direction, expressed or implied. On the other hand, the facts stated in the complaint clearly show that this amount was given to the applicant purely as a business loan, leaving the applicant free to deal with it in any manner that he liked. This is further confirmed by the complainant's own admission in the complaint that the applicant bad passed a promissory note payable on demand to the complainant.
7. Such being the case, the next question for consideration is whether this Court in exercise of his jurisdiction under section 561-A should quash the proceedings. It is no doubt true that the High Court would be reluctant to interfere in quashing the proceedings in a case where a competent Court has formed a view that the prima fade case has been disclosed and the accused are summond, but, it is equally true that, if the facts alleged in the complaint and in the statement of the complainant, even if accepted as correct, do no B disclose any offence under the Penal Code, it will be abuse of process of Court to allow the criminal proceedings to continue as it would only cause unnecessary harassm ent and hardship to the accused, which is not the object of the administration of the justice through Courts. In the case reported as Ghulam Muhammad v.
8. Muzammal Khan (1), their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with the propriety of exercising the inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. Observed as under :- "The High Court, as has repeatedly been pointed out in number of decisions should be extremely reluctant to interfere in a case where the competent Courts have examined the offences produced before it come to the view that a prima facie case is disclosed and has formed, charged or summoned the accused to appear unless it can be said that the charge of this offence or the offences, even if believed, does not disclose any offence."
9. Keeping in view the above observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the facts of this case, in view of above discussion, clearly disclose that the allegation made in the complaint even if accepted to be true do not disclose commission of a criminal offence by the applicant. The statement of the complainant in support of his complaint also shows that the criminal prosecution had been launched by the complainant to enforce a civil liability, if any, against the applicant. By this I do not mean to say that if a transaction of civil nature also 'discloses a criminal liability, the person cannot be proceeded under the criminal law. What I mean to say is that if the facts in the complaint disclose that a dispute between the parties if of a civil nature for which civil remedy is appropriate, but the complainant in order to circumvent that remedy resorts to a criminal prosecution to coerce the D accused into paying the amount under pressure, it would amount to an abuse of the process of Court.
10. ' Mr. S. A. Qarni, the learned counsel appearing for the State also conceded that neither_ the complainant nor the statement of the complainant in support thereof disclose any criminal offence and that the criminal proceedings clearly appear to have been initiated only to harass the applicant and enforce a civil liability through the criminal Court which amounts to abuse of the process of Court.
11. ' For the aforesaid reasons I have formed the view that this is one of those fit cases in which the proceedings against the applicant pending in the Resident Magistrate, Tando Adam, be quashed.
12. ' It may be pointed out that the respondent No, 1, the complainant before the Resident Magistrate, Tando Adam, in spite of notice to him has remained {{FOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1967 SC 317 {{FOT NOTE}} ' absent. The order-sheet further shows that he was also absent on 14-6-1974 and on 8-7-1974.
13. ' This Criminal Misc. Application is accordingly allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the applicant in the Court of Resident Magistrate, Tando Adam, are quashed.