' In continuation of my order dated the 3rd of June, 1976 the position in this case is quite clear. A theft case was registered under section 380/ 411, P. P. C. Against Muhammad Shafi and others at the instance of Muhammad Shafiq petitioner No,
2. Muhammad Asghar respondent, although not mentioned in the F. I. R. As a witness, was made a recovery witness in that case but at the trial stage he did not support the prosecution version and was declared hostile as he had made statement in favour of Muhammad Shafi etc. Accused persons. On this the present petitioners got a case registered against Muhammad Asghar respondent and Muhammad Tufail under section 213/214, P. P. C. On the 18th of November, 1975. The allegation levelled against Muhammad Asghar respondent and Muhammad Tufail co-accused was that they had screened the offenders by accepting some amount of money from the accused side. It is submitted by the learned counsel that on coming to know of the same Muhammad Asghar respondent filed a complaint under section 500/506, P. P. C. Against the present petitioners on the 1st of December, 1975 in the Court of the Magistrate, Burewala, in respect of an incident alleged to have taken place on the 28th of September, 1975. In this complaint under section 500/506, P. P. C. It was alleged by Muhammad Asghar respondent that while he was sitting at his shop along with Muhammad Tufail, Ashraf and Daulat Ali, the present petitioners came there and started abusing him, his mother and sister and thus injured his reputation in the Bazar. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint had been filed by Muhammad Asghar respondent as a counterblast, that it was false and frivolous and that it was in order to harass the present petitioners. Firstly, it is argued that it related to an incident which was stated to have taken place about three months before the institution of the complaint ; secondly, the complaint was instituted after a case had been registered under section 213/214, F. P. C. Against Muhammad Asghar respondent and Muhammad Tufail at the instance of the petitioners and thirdly that the witnesses of the incident mentioned in the complaint were Muhammad Tufail i,e, co-accused of Muhammad Asghar respondent in the case under section 213/214, P. P. C., Ashraf, who is the real brother of Muhammad Tufail co-accused and Daulat Ali, who was a witness in the original case under section 380/411, P. P. C. But was given up as having been won-over. It is, therefore, contended by the learned counsel that no independent person was mentioned as a witness of the incident in respect of which complaint under section 500/506, P. P. C. Had been instituted by Muhammad Asghar respondent against the present petitioners. On the basis of these arguments, it is submitted that the said complaint was a counterblast and it was frivolous and false. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned counsel for Muhammad Asghar respondent that mere delay in the institution of the complaint would not mean that the complaint was a counterblast or false and that in any case it was premature to regard the complaint as a counterblast or false when the case was still at an early stage and no evidence has so far been recorded. Learned counsel placed reliance on Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan (1). I have carefully considered the argument raised by the learned counsel for Muhammad Asghar respondent but find it without any substance. The facts of the case are that Muhammad Asghar respondent in his complaint case under section 500/506, P. P. C. Has mentioned the names of three witnesses, who are all connected with him in the earlier criminal cases, and not a single independent witness has been cited. From this I draw the inference that the complaint instituted by him against the present petitioners is not only a counterblast but a false and frivolous complaint which has been instituted for no other purpose except to harass the petitioners. In that view of the matter, it would be an abuse A of the process of the Court to allow the proceedings to continue. The result is that I quash the proceedings of the complaint under section 500/506, P. P. C. Initiated by Muhammad Asghar respondent against the petitioners and at present pending in the Court of the Resident Magistrate, Bure Nala. This petition is accepted.
(1) PLD 1967 SC 317