' Petitioner No, 1 is the son, and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are his parents. Respondent No, 1 is alleged to be former wife of petitioner No,
1. On 25-6-1977 respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners before the Ilaqa Magistrate under section 406/420/109, P. P. C. Wherein it is alleged that at the time of marriage, the parents of respondent gave her dowery, the items whereof are mentioned in Annex. B to the complaint, that had been signed by the petitioner No, 2 as a surety for petitioner No,
1. It is further alleged that the above articles were entrusted to petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 in presence of at least 200 men and women. Thereafter, the marriage was dissolved through divorce. However, the dowery remained with the petitioners. The dowery is the, bone of contention since the petitioners were adamant in refusing its use by the respondent. A dispute developed over it and-she was sent to Lahore in wearing garments, and thereafter she was divorced (learned counsel has not supplied the copy of Annex. B). The respondent has been demanding back her dowery but the petitioners have refused its return and have misappropriated the same. It is further asserted that petitoiner No, 1 is a fraud and is in the habit of marrying women for the purpose of dowery only and thereafter he divorces them retaining their dowery. This fact that he was previously married was hidden from the respondent. Mst. Nasreen Hameed respondent also made a statement before the Map Magistrate. Her statement was supported by Kauser Mailk and Hamid Beg, her father. Thereafter the process has been issued against the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel contends that this is a case of civil nature and the filing of complaint is abuse of process of Court. He further submits that earlier complaint filed by the respondent was dismissed for non-prosecution and this is a second complaint and under the circumstance no second compl aint can be filed. Moreover, two complaints are at variance with one another.
3. It has been mentioned in paragraph 8 that the earlier complaint, filed under the Divorce Act, was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. It has not been argued by learned counsel that in the previous complaint the evidence was recorded and after due scrutiny the learned Magistrate ha dismissed the complaint. Under the circumstance I hold that the dismissal of the earlier complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction does not ba the filing of the present complaint. Learned counsel has pointed out to m an order dated 15-11-1976 wherein the earlier complaint filed under section 4 of the Act 16 of 1967 of West Pakistan Dowery (Prohibition and Display) Act, 1967 was dismissed for non-prosecution. I am not convinced that under the circumstance the present complaint cannot be entertained by the Court of competent jurisdiction. On merits the learned counsel has placed reliance on three cases of this Court. The earliest one is Mahmood-ul-Hasan v. Imtiaz Khan (1) wherein it was held that if the interest of the complainant is only recovery of his dues then filing of complaint is abuse of process of the Court. In the other two cases namely Riaz-uddin and another v. The State (2) and Umatul Maqsoom v. Hasan Din and others (3) it is held that complaint for the recovery of dowery simpliciter cannot be filed.
4. In the present case the complaint is not for the recovery of dowery simpliciter. The allegations have been made against the petitioner No, 1 that he is a cheat and is in the habit of marrying women for the purpose of B obtaining dowery and thereafter he divorced them and the marriage with, the resdondent was a fraud, in accordance with their style. So the allegations; made in the complaint are distinguishable from the facts of the cases cited above. Therefore the ratio of the above cases is inapplicable in the present. Serious allegations have been made against the petitioners and it is for the C Court of competent jurisdiction to give adjudication thereupon. There is no merit in this petition. It is dismissed in limine. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1963 Lah. 481 (2) 1971 P Cr. L J 1053 {{FOOT NOTE}}