' This is a petition under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. For quashment of the proceedings of a criminal case for offences under section 406/420, P. P. C. Started on a direct complaint by one Ghulam Muhammad son of Pir Bux Chutto against the petitioner in the Court of S. D. M., Sanghar.
2. It has been pointed out by Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh that the petitioner has not been having easy time with district administration of Sanghar and particularly with Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar and a number of cases were, therefore, started against the petitioner and he was detained in Jail just because he had the audacity to make allegations against the district administration. Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh has further shown that the petitioner had-been released on bail in a case under section 107, Cr. P. C. Pending in the Court of Mukhtiarkar and F. C. M., Khipro on 15-4-1976. On the very next day i. e. On 16-4-1976 this direct complaint purporting to have been filed by one Ghulam Muhammad was entertained by the learned S. D. M. And P. E. Was ordered, within a week's time the preliminary enquiry was completed and process, namely, bailable warrants were issued on 23-4-1976. On 29-4-1976 these bailable warrants were repeated and on 5-5-1976, since the accused could not be served, non-bailable warrants were ordered to be issued against the petitioner.
3. The direct complaint mentions that 4 or 5 months prior to the filing of the complaint, the petitioner and one Kabir Ali had offered to get complainant Ghulam Muhammad four acres of land somewhere for Rs, 6,000. Since Ghulam Muhammad had already paid Rs, 2,000 for some other transaction of purchase and sale which had not materialised, he paid Rs, 4,000 more in cash without obtaining any receipt. The agreement of sale was not actually got executed as the vendor could not be made available and he was kept on hopes until he came and filed this complaint. It has been rightly shown by Mr. Shaikh that the complaint on the face of it is false and frivolous. A person who has already suffered at the hands of the petitioner and his friends and lost Rs, 2,000 would not readily agree to pay Rs, 4,000 more in cash in the hope of getting some other land nor would he wait for 4 or 5 months before filing the complaint. Ordinarily the payment should have been made to the vendor and not to the petitioner or his friend.
4. Thus taking into consideration the background, and also the f stated in the complaint, there could be no doubt that these proceedings ar an instance of abuse of process of Court. Mr. Usman Ghani the learned Assistant Advocate General frankly concedes that the proceedings appear t be false and they are not bona fide, He, therefore, does not oppose the petition for quashment.
5. In the result the petition is allowed and the proceedings of the Criminal Case No, 19/76 pending in the Court of S. D. M., Sanghar are hereb quashed.