' Mureeda filed this petition under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. For the quashment of proceedings in case title Abdul Hakeem v. Ghulama, Mureeda etc., under sections 423, 420, 500 and 506, P. P. C. The petitioner alleged that Abdul Hakeem had illicit relations with his wife Mst. Bhaghan and for that reason, he divorced her that the respondent with the help of his brothers Mohammad Yousaf etc. Got a false case registered against him and others under section 397/411, P. P. C. ; but the Ilaqa Magistrate discharged him and others ; that the respondent got a complaint filed again at Sargodha and the petitioner filed Crl. Misc. No, 681-Q-73 and the learned Chief Justice quashed the proceedings in the said complaint ; that the respondent instituted a false complaint against him and others including his son, who was a student of 10th Class in M. C. High School, Mian Channu.
The petitioner filed an affidavit along with the quashment petition. Notice was issued to Abdul Hakeem complainant-respondent. The respondent appeared, but he did not file any reply nor his affidavit. It was stated by the petitioner that he and his brothers had dispute with Gujjars in respect to possession of evacuee Ehata No, 89 and on account of that dispute, the Gujjars wanted him and other members of the family to leave the village. The petitioner produced certified copy of the order dated 29-4-1964, passed by Assistant Collector, Ist Class. It was mentioned in the said order that Mureeda, his brother Ghulam and Soja were in possession of evacuee Ehata No, 89 before 1947, and according to Settlement Scheme No, VII, they could not be ejected. This copy clearly supports the contention of the petitioner. One Ghulam Nabi filed a complaint against Mureeda in District Sargodha under sections 420 and 406, P. P. C. The learned Chief Justice, vide his order dated 16-11-1974, quashed the proceedings holding that Ghulam Nabi had not started proceedings in good faith. Muhammad Yousaf Gujjar got a case registered on 18-11-1972, against the present petitioner, his brother Ghulam, his nephew Adil and his son Fazal Ahmad, under sections 379 and 411, P. P. C. At Police Station, Kassowal. Mohammad Yousaf appeared as a witness in that case. A certified copy of his statement was produced before this Court. Mohammad Yousaf admitted in cross-examination that his uncle Rehmat Ali had filed a petition against Mureeda and others in respect Of an ehata and the said ehata was allptted to Mureeda and others. The present petitioner and the co-accused of that case were discharged on 17-10-1972. Certified copy of the order of discharge has also been produced before this Court. Abdul Hakeem complainant-respondent disclosed in his complaint dated 8-6-1974, that six months ago, the petitioner and his brother Ghulama had borrowed Rs, 590 from him on the promise to return it in the shape of wheat, but thereafter declined to return the said money ; that on 6.6-1974, he approached Mureeda petitioner and others and demanded the wheat, but the petitioner and others threatened him and gave him slaps and fist blows ; that Mureeda and other accused had declared it in the village that he (petitioner) was in the habit of misappropriating the amount of others and that wheat should not be supplied to him and on account of said propaganda, his business suffered a lot and he was defamed in the eyes of others. These were the allegations against the petitioner and others. The learned Magistrate, vide his order dated 19.6-1974, summoned Mureeda (petitioner), Ghulama, Adil, Mohammad Ali and Fazal, under sections 506, 520, P. P. C. It would not be out of place to mention here that Mureeda filed another Crl. Misc. No, 359/Q-74, on 15-7-1974, under section 561-A, Cr. P. C.
For tl-e quashment of proceedings in complaint filed by Mohammad Sharif Lambardar Gujjar against him, his brother Ghulama, his son Fazal and nephews Adil and Mohammad Ali, under sections 323, 341, 500 and 506, P. P. C. In the said complaint, the learned Magistrate summoned Mureeda and others under sections 341 and 506, P. P. C. Vide his order dated 2-7-1974. That is not the end of litigation. Ghulam real brother of Mureeda petitioner filed Crl. Misc. No, 309/Q-74 on 3-8- 1974, for the quashment of proceedings iu complaint titled Mohammad Yousaf v. Fazal Ghulama and another, under sections 323, 324, 341, 500 and 506, P. P. C. Incidentally, said Mohammad Yousaf is the same person who had earlier got arrested Fazal and nephew Adil, under sections 379 and 411, P. P. C. It would be interesting to note that allegations levelled by Mohammad Yousaf Lambardar in two different complaints against the petitioner and others were of the same nature.
2. From the above circumstances, it stood established that there was a dispute over the possession of evacuee Ehata No, 89 between Mureeda and his brothers on the one side, and uncles of Yousaf (complainant of one of the case) on the other side; that a case under sections 379 and 411, P. P. C.
Was registered at the instance of said Yousaf against Mureeda petitioner, his brother Ghulama, son Fazal and nephew Adil and all of them were discharged by the learned Magistrate on 17-10-1973 : that one Ghulam Nabi filed a complaint against Mureeda petitioner at Sargodha under sections 406 and 420, P. P. C. And the proceedings were quashed by the learned Chief Justice on 16-1-1977, on the application of the present petitioner ; that Abdul Hakeem Gujjar filed a complaint on 8-6- 1974, against Mureeda petitioner, his brother Ghulama, his son Fazal and nephews Adil and Mohammad Ali, under sections 323, 420, 500, and 506, P. P. C., that Mohammad Sharif Gujjar filed a complaint on 4-6-1974, against Mureeda petitioner, his brother Ghulama, his son Fazal and nephews Adil and Mohammad Ali, under sections 323, 341, 500 and 506, P. P. C., that Mohammad Yousaf filed a complaint on 17-6-1974, against Ghulama petitioner, his son Adil and nephew Fazil son of Mureeda, under sections 324, 341, 500 and 506, P. P. C. The previous litigation and the present three complaints clearly prove that Mureeda, his brother, son. And nephews are being prosecuted in the three complaints with mala fide intention. No person can be permitted to abuse the process of Court.
3. The net result of the above discussion is that I accept the three petitions mentioned and quash the proceedings in all the three complaints referred to above. Announced in Court on 27-11-1974.