' The applicant has filed present application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., wherein he has stated that his marriage took place on 11-7-1991 at Karachi with Mst. Khalida Parveen, respondent No,l. On 9-12- 1991, i.e, after four months and twenty eight days of the marriage respondent No, 1 gave birth to a female child. The relations between spouses were strained prior and after the birth of girl. Applicant was pressed hard to keep respondent No, 1 as his wife but he declined and on 21-7-1992 he divorced respondent No,1.
2. On divorce parents of respondent No,1 annoyed very much and started threatening the applicant. The father of the respondent No, 1 has been working as petition writer in the City Courts premises and has influence upon police and other officials. Respondent No,1 at the instance of her father, in order to pressurize the applicant, has instituted different cases against the applicant before different forums.
3. It is further stated that applicant is Upper Division Clerk in Railway and S.H.O. Railway Police at the instance of respondent No, 1 started harassing the applicant. He, therefore, complained to the High Court and his complaint was sent to Home Secretary, who took suitable action and applicant got rid of the S.H.O. Railway Police Station City, Karachi.
4. He has also stated that the respondent No,1 and her father were not satisfied with the agonies, which they caused to applicant. They managed with Orangi Town Police Station and police started visiting the house of applicant. He, therefore, made application to Inspector-General of Police Sindh, but no action was taken.
5. It is further averred that on 13-12-1993 at 9.30 p.m. Applicant was arrested by S.H.O. Orangi Town Police Station, Karachi, and was taken to police Station where he was pressurized to take back the respondent No, 1 as his wife and female child as his own girl. On refusal, he was given severe beatings and was also deprived of his Citizen wrist watch andRs,90 cash. In the morning, i.e, on 14- 12-1993, applicant was taken to the Court of S.D.M. Orangi Town, Karachi, where it transpired that respondent No, 1 has initiated proceedings under section 107 Cr.P.C. Against him.
6. Learned S:D.M. Passed order under section 112, Cr.P.C. And served the same on applicant. The order in reproduced hereinbelow:- ' "Order under section 112, Cr.P.C. Whereas S.H.O. Orangi Town: {{URDU TEXT}} ' And thereby likely to commit a breach of peace disturb to public tranquility.
' And whereas on being satisfied with the police report complaint I, the Assistant Commissioner and S.D.M. Orangi Town, Karachi, hereby call upon you to show cause on as to why you should not be entered into the personal bond in the sum ofRs,5,000 with one surety in the like amount to keep peace for the term of one year. The surety must be the resident of the same locality and solvent to the extent of the said amount.
' Given under my hand and the seal of this Court this day of 14-12-1993. Sd/A.C. And S.D.M. Orangi Town (Syed Moinuddin) 14-12-1993.
' The above order has been read over and explained to the opponent in the language to which he understand.
(Sd.)
A.C. And S.D.M. (Syed Moinuddin) Karachi Orangi Town 14-12-1993."
7. The applicant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the cognizance taken in the matter, has sought the quashment of proceedings of the Case No, 780 of 1993 (Mst. Khalida Parveen v.
Muhammad Irfan Khan) pending before S.D.M. Orangi Town, Karachi (West), respondent No, 3 herein.
8. In the morning, when this matter was taken up, applicant was present in person but his Advocate was called absent. Respondents and their counsel were also called absent. In the interest of justice matter was kept aside and was again taken-up in second round at about 11.55 a.m. But the position was same. Since the matter was very old, therefore, I decided to proceed with it.
9. I have heard the applicant in person as well as Mr. Muhammad Ismail Memon, for the State.
Latter, concedes to the quashment of proceedings. I have also perused the application, impugned order and material placed on record.
10 The bare perusal of the record reveals that matrimonial dispute was existing between the parties. No specific instance with date, time and place is shown in the order under section 112, Cr.P.C. Where from it could be deduced that there was any apprehension of breach in peace which warranted the initiation of proceedings under section 107, Cr.P.C. The mere fact that enmity or ill- feeling exists between the two parties is not sufficient to take action under section 107, Cr.P.C.
11. In the case of N. Reemes and 2 others v. The State (1980 PCr.LJ 126) it is observed that a bare possibility of breach of the peace is not enough to justify proceedings under this section there must be at least a reasonable probability of such a breach, where the evidence on the record neither discloses any breach that has already occurred or any probability that it is likely to occur but only makes vague surmises of such possibility, proceedings taken under the section may be quashed. The same view was taken in the case reported in 3 Shome L.R.
37.
12. In yet another decision of Division Bench reported in (47 Cal. W.N. 731), it was held that action under section 107, Cr.P.C. Cannot be taken merely on the ground that a person has cast a slur on the character and activity of another person and has been carrying on a campaign of vilification against him.
13. The order under section 112, Cr.P.C. Reveals that it was passed in a mechanical manner without applying judicial mind. The impugned order under section 112, Cr.P.C. Appears to be a cyclostyled one and Magistrate has only filled in the blanks.
14. The impugned order under section 1i2, Cr.P.C. Was passed on 14-12-1993 for a term of one year.
The period of one year expired on or about D 14-12-1994 and we are now in 1998, even on this score proceedings have become infructuous. In this context, I am fortified by the decisions reported in the case of The State v. Shafi Muhammad and others (PLD 1961 (W.P.) Karachi 118), Nur Nabi v. The State (1968 PCr.LJ 131) and Miral v. The State (1978 PCr.LJ 161).
15. In the case of Azim-ud-Din and 2 others v. The State (1973 PCr.LJ 364) The State v. Ghulam Hussain and others (PLD 1963 Karachi 679) and (1959-2 And. W.R. 454), it is held that the object of the section is to prevent the breach of the peace. A prolongation of the Proceedings (nearly two years having elapsed from the date of the order under section 112, Cr.P.C.) for whatever reasons is not calculated to achieve this object. As the proceedings grow stale, any raking up of the matters would not conduce to better relations between the parties but lead only to the revival of unpleasant memories leading to fresh troubles.
16. The upshot of the above discussion is that application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is allowed and proceedings pending before the Court of E S.D.M, Orangi Town, Karachi (West), in Case No, 780 of 1993 (Mst. Khalida Parveen v. Muhammad Irfan Khan) are abuse of the process of Court and are hereby quashed.
17 Since the main case has been disposed of, listed Miscellaneous Applications have become infructuous and those stand disposed of accordingly.