1. Brief facts as stated in the direct complaint which was filed by one Jamal son of Allah Ditta against the present applicant under sections 420 and 506, P.P.C. On 5-8-1992,' are that M/s. Amna, Talib, Sadiq and Khalid, the accused/present applicants are closed relatives of Mst. Sajida daughter of Imam Bux and also related to the complainant. Complainant's Nikah was performed with Mst.
2. Sajida daughter of Imam Bux about 15 years prior to filing of this complaint. During this period the mother of Mst. Sajida obtained a loan of Rs. 50,000 with a promise to refund the same as early as possible, but neither the amount was returned nor the Rukhasti was performed. That. On 22-6-1992, a friend of the complainant informed him that Mst. Sajida is married with one Ghulam Fareed S/o Elahi Bux on 20-6-1992, on this the complainant protested and demanded back Rs. 50,000 but the complainant was threatened for dire consequences on 24-6-1992. In the prayed clause, the complainant has prayed for action against the accused under sections 420 and 506, P.P.C. And refund of Rs. 50,000 with interest of 15%.
3. On this complaint, learned A.C.M.(V) Central, Karachi issued process under sections 420, 406, 504 and 506, P.P.C. Read with section 337-A(1) of Qisas and Diyet Ordinance, 1990.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants accused and Mrs. Salima Nasiruddin, learned counsel for the State. The counsel for the applicants/accused has pointed out that even in the complaint sections were mentioned as sections 420 and 506, P.P.C. While the process were issued by the learned ACM-V Central Karachi on 8-8-1992 as stated above. He has also argued that ACM- V Central has not applied his mind judiciously and has issued process in a case where there is purely a transaction of money and the case if at all is of civil nature Mrs. Nasiruddin, for the State does not oppose this application andsupport the contention of the Advocate for the applicants/accused and further states it's a fit case where proceedings of the lower Court be quashed.
5. After hearing both the counsel and perusal of the record, I am of the view that the learned ACM-V Central Karachi has not applied his mind judiciously and has tried to make a civil case into a criminal one. He was duty bound to return the direct complaint with an observation that the parties should seek their remedy in a proper forum. The applicants/accused have already suffered as they are facing trial since, 1992. Under these circumstances, I quash the proceedings pending before ACM-V, Central Karachi being private complaint No. 86 of 1992. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Application is allowed as prayed.