' Mst. Zubeda, Mst. Nasrin Akhtar, Mst. Taslim Akhtar, Muhammad Saddiq, Mst. Zubeda wife of Anwar-ul-Haq, Muhammad Yaqub and Muhammad Hussain petitioners have moved this petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of the proceedings in the private complaint filed by Ghulam Ahmad respondent against them under sections 406 and 420/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code now pending in the Court of Mr. Saadat Ali, Magistrate First Class, Sargodha.
2. Mst. Zubeda petitioner No, 1 is the mother of Mst. Nasrin Akhtar and Mst. Taslim Akhtar petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. Muhammad Hussain petitioner No, 7 is the brother of petitioner No,
1. Muhammad Siddiq petitioner No, 4 is the husband of Mst. Taslim Akhtar petitioner No,
3. Mst. Zubeda petitioner No, 5 is the sister of Muhammad Yaqub petitioner No, 6 and their maternal grand-father was the real brother of Ali Muhammad, husband of Mst. Zubeda petitioner No,
1. Ghulam Ahmad complainant-respondent is the father of Ejaz Ahmad who is married to Mst. Nasrin Akhtar petitioner No, 2.
3. The allegations in the complaint are that Mst. Nasrin Akhtar and her husband Ejaz Ahmad were living in the house of the complainant-respondent. Four or five months before 15th July 1975 when Mst. Nasrin Akhtar was on family way, petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 to 7 came there and requested the respondent to send her with them and promised that she would be sent back after the delivery.
Mst. Zubeda petitioner No, 1 also requested the respondent to give ornaments to Mst. Nasrin Akhtar upon which he gave her golden ornaments, clothes and an attache-case in the presence of Ghulam Mustafa and Sakhawat Ali and the aforesaid petitioners took her away. Some time later, the respondent received a letter from Mst. Zubeda petitioner No, 1 that Mst. Nasrin Akhtar had given birth to a child but he had died, upon which he visited her house in Chak No, 8, District Sheikhupura, in the company of Ghulam Mustafa etc. Where other petitioners were also present. He asked Mst.
Zubeda to return the ornaments and send Mst. Nasrin Akhtar with him but she refused to do so and told him that she would get divorce for Mst. Nasrin Akhtar in order to marry her somewhere else. In the complaint it is further stated that petitioners Nos. 2 to 7 unanimously declared that they had brought the ornaments through deception and he might do whatever he liked.
' After recording the statements of Ghulam Ahmad complainant and his witnesses, namely, Ghulam Mustafa and Sakhawat Ali, the Magistrate issued process against the petitioners on 26th August, 1975.
4. The case of the petitioners is that Mst. Nasrin Akhtar petitioner No, 2 was married with Ejaz Ahmad son of Ghulam Ahmad respondent who was habitually cruel towards her. On 29,h April 1975 he made a murderous assault on her and her mother Mst. Zubeda petitioner No, 1 in Chak No, 8, Police Station Nankana Sahib and a case under sections 307 and 326/34, P.P.C. Was registered against him at the instance of Mst. Nasrin Akhtar vide F.I.R, No, 101 dated 29-4-1975. Ghulam Ahmad respondent approached the petitioners for a compromise but his request was turned down whereupon he filed this false and frivolous complaint under sections 406 and 420/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code in the Court of Magistrate First Class, Sargodha, against them on 15th July 1975 and the Magistrate, without applying his mind to the facts of the case, issued nonbailable warrants of arrest against them.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous and has been instituted to compel the petitioners for a compromise in the case under section 307/34, P.P.C. Registered against the son of the respondent at the instance of Mst. Nasrin Akhtar petitioner. He submits that the petitioners are being prosecuted at a distance of moi e than 150 miles from their abode with a mate fide intention so that they may feel difficulty in finding the suieties and respondent No, 1 was successful in his design inasmuch as Mst. Zubeda petitioner No, 1, an aged woman, was arrested in compliance with the non-bailable warrant issued against her and was detained in the judicial lock-up. It is further submitted that Muhammad Siddiq petitioner was an eye-witness in the case under section 307, P.P.C. Against the son of the respondent and the impugned complaint was being used as a device to pressurize the petitioners and compel them not to pursue the case under section 307, P.P.C. He further argues that even if the allegations in the complaint are accepted as they are, no offence under section 406 or 420, P.P.C. Is made out because Mst. Nasrin Akhtar being the wife of Ejaz Ahmad, son of the complainant-respondent, was entitled to keep the ornaments and clothes with her. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the Magistrate had issued the process against the petitioners after applying his mind to the evidence produced by the respondent before him which clearly supports the allegations contained in the complaint, therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed.
6. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that on 29th April 1975 a case under section 307, P.P.C. Was registered against Ejaz Ahmad son of the respondent at the instance of Mst.
Nasrin Akhtar petitioner. The petitioners have filed the medico-legal reports of Mst. Nasrin Akhtar and Mst. Zubeda along with a copy of the F.I.R. Of the case under section 307, P.P.C. The medico- legal report of Mst. Nasrin Akhtar shows that she had five incised wounds out of which injui y No, 1 was grievous and No, was dangerous to life. Mst. Zubeda had four injuries on her person out of which injury No, 2 was grievous. It is pertinent to note that the private complaint out of which this petition has arisen, was filed about two and a half months after the registration of the case under section 307, P.P.C. But it does not find any mention in the complaint. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended with some justification that it was wilfully and dishonestly concealed because if it had come to the notice of the Magistrate that Mst. Nasrin Akhtar was prosecuting the son of the respondent under section 307, P. P. C. He might not have issued the process against the petitioners. There is also much force in his contention that the complainant had approached the petitioners for a compromise in the case under section 307, P.P.C. But since two of them had suffered serious injuries at the hands of his son, therefore, his request was turned down and he brought this complaint to pressuries the petitioners and compel them for a compromise. The respondent being the father-in-law of petitioner No, 2 was expected to approach her and her relatives for a compromise. After perusing the record I feel that the Magistrate concerned proceeded mechanically and summoned the petitioners just in routine without applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the complaint seven persons including four women residing in other districts had been implicated, therefore, the Magistrate should have put court- questions to the witnesses to test their veracity and satisfy his conscience before issuing the process. After going through the complaint and the statements of the complainant and his two witnesses-apparently his pets, who allegedly witnessed the delivery of ornaments to the petitioners in the house of the complainant at Sargodha and also claim to be present at Chak No, 8, Police Station Nankana Sahib, District Sheikhupura, when the petitioners allegedly refused to return the ornaments, a person of ordinary intelligence can at once understand that the complaint is malicious.
7. After going through the material placed before me I am clearly of the, view that the complaint is false and is being prosecuted not to advance the, ends of justice but to cause harassment to the petitioners and compel them for a compromise in the case under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
8. For the foregoing reasons, I accept this petition and quash the proceedings in the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioners under sections 406 and 420/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code.