1. ' This application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is filed by the applicants/accused in the Criminal Case No,303 of 1992 vide F.I.R. No,469 of 1992 under section 506-B/34, P.P.C. Pending in the Court of the learned S.D.M., Civil Lines, Karachi.
2. The brief facts as stated in the F.I.R. Are that Ali Hassan, maternal-uncle of the complainant Muhammad Hussain, Constable of Police Line South, Karachi, expired on 28-6-1992 and it was suspected that he was poisoned and a report was made at Police Station, Gulbahar, Karachi- Central, on 19-9-1992. As such dead body of Ali Hassan was dogged out after 2 months and 23 days and was subjected to post-mortem, which was signed by Medical Board on 14-1-1993 but the cause of death could not be ascertained, however,. F.I.R. Was lodged under sections 302, 147, P.P.C.
3. Being F.I.R. No, 27/93 by Police Station, Gulbahar, which was challenged in Constitutional Petition No,55 of 1993 and the case was disposed of on 20-9-1993 by a Division Bench as S.S.P., C.I.A., reported that the case is false and prior to this F.I.R. a case under section 506-B/34, P.P.C. Was also registered being F.I.R. No,469/92. In-between harassment and criminal litigation continued and a case under sections 107, 117, Cr.P.C. Was also registered against them at Police Station Gulbahar. It is further the case of the complainant that on 1-11-1992 he was attacked by the in-laws, who were duly armed with weapons. It is further alleged that the complainant while he was on duty at the bungalow of Liaquat Ali Jatoi, which was vacant, was fired at by the in-laws on 18-11-1992, but he managed to save himself by taking shelter inside the bungalow.
4. ' I have heard Mrs. Navin Merchant, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Habibur Rasheed, learned counsel for the State, and have also perused the record.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the F.I.R. Does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence and there is an inordinate delay of lodging the F.I.R.
6. Inasmuch as the offence is alleged to have occurred on 11-11-1992 and the report has been lodged on 8-12-1992. Learned Advocate has argued that there is vague allegation to the threat of life on the complainant as it is admitted by the prosecution that neither any recovery has been made nor any empties have been recovered of the alleged firing. Learned counsel further contends that the complainant being a police constable is influential person as such he got registered the cases in different police stations with a view to harass the applicants/accused. Learned counsel further contends that the real story is that on 11-12-1992 the complainant took away the applicants/accused in a Taxi bearing No, JL 6764 which was on monthly installments with applicant/accused Iqbal for providing living expenses to Mst. Sayeeda Begum widow of Ali Hassan and another sister and their children who has been abandoned by the brother-in-law's of the applicants/accused and at police station the applicants/accused were beaten up badly by police constables on the instigation of the complainant and a false case was registered under section 506-B/34, P.P.C. Further, the applicants/ accused were on duty on the date mentioned in the F.I.R. Of the alleged offence. Learned counsel has pointed out that during the proceedings of the abovementioned case when the applicants were in jail their brother-in-law, namely, Muhamamd Bux and complainant tried to kidnap Mst. Sayeeda Begum's son Asif Ali aged about 13 years while he was returning from shcool and walking through Kalapul. Mst. Sayeeda Begum went to the Police Station, Frere Town to lodge the report of the same. The same was registered and Muhammad Bux was arrested, later on released on bail but the S.H.O. Of the said police station showed his inability to arrest the complainant Muhammad Hassan because he was the Guard at the Bungalow of Liquat Jatoi. Lastly, the learned counsel argued that even if the case of the prosecution is admitted at the face of it, no case is made out against the applicants/accused and there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the applicants/accused have committed the offence as alleged even otherwise the case of the prosecution is based on suspicion and conjectures and surmises which are not maintainable in law, and there is no evidence of whatsoever against the applicants/accused so as to justify their implication in the case and there is not even an iota of evidence to justify their being challenged in the case.
7. ' Mr. Habibur Rasheed, the learned counsel for the State has no objection to the quashment of the proceedings prayed for as the applicants/ accused are C facing agony of the trial since 1992.
8. ' In view of the above facts and circumstances and the objection of the learned counsel for the State, I have quashed the proceedings pending against the applicants before the S.D.M., Civil Lines, Karachi on 20-2-1995 by my short order and these are the reasons for the same Bail bonds executed by the applicants are discharged.