1. ' By this criminal miscellaneous application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The applicant Muhammad Hussain son of Gul Khan Leghari, seeks abashment of proceedings pending against him under section 14/4 of Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975, (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Tribunal, Dadu.
2. ' Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the S.H.O. Police Station Qasbu, Taluka Johi, District Dadu, submitted report under section 14/4 of Act in the Court of S.D.M./Tribunal, Dadu on 19-2-1992.
3. ' The complaint/report reads as under:-- "It is submitted to the Honorable Court that the above named respondent/accused resides within the jurisdiction of Police Station Qasbu.
4. ' The above named accused is thief, loafer and criminal. The thieves and criminals of far of places do visit him and he gets theft committed through them. He himself commits thefts and gets thefts committed and disposes of stolen property after receiving Bhung. At the time of committing theft he himself as leader of the gang of thieves keeps deadly weapons with himself and does not hesitate to use these weapons. There is great awe and terror of this accused in the public and no one from public comes forward to give evidence against him. His remaining at large is hazardous to the public and public will take sigh of relief if he remains in custody.
5. ' As such he is referred to this Court under section 14/4 of Act and the Honorable Court may be pleased to proceed against him and communicate the final decision."
6. ' The learned S.D.M./Tribunal, Dadu after recording the statement of S.H.O. Police Station Qasbu ordered issuance of non-boilable warrant against the applicant under section 5 of the Act on 19-2- 1998.
7. ' In pursuance of N.B.W., issued by the learned S.D.M./Tribunal, Dadu, the S.H.O. Concerned arrested the applicant on 17-3-1998 and produced him before the learned S.D.M./Tribunal and on the same day the learned S.D.M./Tribunal passed order under section 8(iii) of Act. The applicant furnished surety. Consequently, he was released from custody on 17-3-1998. The applicant has challenged the proceedings before this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. By way of the above criminal miscellaneous application.
8. ' I have heard Mr. Shafi Muhammad Memon, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, A.A.-G. For the State.
9. ' Mr. Shafi Muhammad Memon, has contended that the allegations in the report are vague, false and baseless and they have no nexus with section 14 of the Act. The learned counsel submits that there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act and the proceedings pending against him are mala fide.
10. ' The learned counsel points out that murder case cited in the report has already resulted in acquittal of the applicant and previous proceedings against the applicant have also ended in his favor.
11. ' The learned counsel further submitted that the witnesses cited in the report are only police officials and no private witness(s) has been cited in the report and as such it is a fit case for abashment of proceedings.
12. ' The learned A.A.-G. Has opposed prayer made in the criminal miscellaneous application.
13. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have perused the report and various orders, passed by the learned S.D.M./Tribunal and also the material placed on record.
14. The report submitted by the S.H.O. Concerned shows that the allegations contained in the report are vague and they are of sweeping nature. The only case cited in the reference is murder case which has no nexus with section 14/4 of Act. No recent case has been cited in the report and it is not disclosed in the reference as to why the proceedings were initiated against the applicant.
15. ' The learned counsel for the applicant has produced true copy of the case diary, dated 13-3-1998, supported by the copy of judgment, dated 13-3-1998 of Sessions Case No,433 of 1986, which shows that the accused persons including the applicant Muhammad Hussain were acquitted of the murder charge.
16. ' The Photostat copy of the order, dated 7-6-1995, passed by S.D.M./Tribunal Dadu, placed on record, shows that proceedings earlier initiated against the applicant vide Tolo No,1 of 1995 referred to in the present report, dated 19-2-1998 were ordered to be filed as it lacked the ingredients of* section 14/4 of the Act.
17. ' It is surprising that despite this, the S.H.O. Concerned again initiated the proceedings against the applicant without any fresh material or ground mentioning in the report only on general and vague allegations.
18. Besides, the complaint/report contains no details of acts allegedly committed by the applicant nor time and place of commission of such acts is given therein. As such, there is no compliance of mandatory provisions of sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act.
19. ' The witnesses cited in the report are all Police Officials and not a single independent or private person has been cited as witness against the applicant.
20. ' In the case of Amir Ali and 22 others v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ 30 his Lordship Mr. Justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, quashed the proceedings in a number of cases holding that merely vague allegations against the accused such as of being bad character or a thief or a scoundrel or a Bad mash would not be sufficient to initiate proceedings against him under the Act.
21. ' In the recent decision of this Court report as Haji Muhammad Ayoob v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 771 this Court quashed the proceedings under Act holding that taking the cognizance on the basis of a police report containing , general and vague allegations and issuing non-bailable warrants by the Tribunal was without jurisdiction and it was in complete disregard of the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Act.
22. ' Considering the entire material on the record, contents of the report and various orders passed by the learned Tribunal, I am of the view that the report filed by the S.H.O. Concerned is lacking in material particulars and, there was no justification for initiating proceedings against the applicant.
23. There is also non-compliance of mandatory provisions contained in sections 4, 5 and 6 of Act.
24. These proceedings are, therefore, liable to be quashed.
25. ' Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous application is allowed and the proceedings pending against the applicant under section 14/4 of the Act, 1975 in the Court of S.D.M./Tribunal, Dadu, are hereby quashed.
26. ' Above are the reasons for my short order, dated 18-5-1998, by which I allowed the present criminal miscellaneous application and quashed the proceedings pending against the applicant before the S.D.M./Tribunal, Dadu.