The present application under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. Has been filed by petitioner Fazal Karim, who prays that proceedings instituted against him by respondent Muhammad Mursaleen on a complaint under sec--tion 420/406; P.P.C. In the Court of City Magistrate at Sukkur, may be quashed. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim. Memon, Advocate for the petitioner/accused (hereinafter referred to s "the accused"), Mr. Maroof Ali Khan, Advocate for the respondent/complainant Muhammad Mursaleen (hereinafter referred to as the complainant") and Mr. Nazeer Alam, Advocate for the State. The learned counsel for the State has supported the petition.
2. The facts stated in the complaint are that the complainant, who deals in radios at Sukkur is closely related to the accused, who again deals in distribution of films. In November. 1974, the accused came to the complainant at Sukkur and demanded a sum of Rs. 40,000 because he was in need of such amount in order to complete production of a film which according to the complainant would have required six months. The complainant then paid a sum of Rs. 28,000 to the accused in presence of witnesses. The complaint further recites that after the stipulated period of six months the complainant demanded the money front the accused but the amount was not returned as the film was not yet ready. It seems that the complainant made repeated demands but the same were repelled by the accused. On such facts the complainant thought that he had been cheated and he filed the present complaint. In the statement under section .202, Cr. P. C. The complainant has stated that the accused, who was his relative, used to borrow money from the complainant off and on for the purpose of his business. Salim, who is another witness of the complainant, in his statement under section 202, Cr. P. C. Has stated that the accused had taken an amount of Rs. 28,000 from the complainant as a loan. In similar, terms Hafiz, another witness ex- -amined under section 202, Cr. P. C. Has also stated that at the time of payment the complainant had himself told the accused that he was paying Rs. 28,000 as a loan.
3. Mr. M. I. Memon, learned counsel for the accused, has urged that on the facts disclosed in the complaint and stated by the complainant and his witnesses no criminal case is made out and the transaction at best gives rise to civil liability enforceable by the complainant in a Civil Court. The learned Advocate states that resort has been taken by the complainant to the Criminal Court solely with a view to coerce the accused to pay money which the accused may be liable to pay, but only if proceedings are taken in a civil Court. The learned Advocate has invited my attention to the case of B. C. P. Guignurd v. The State (PLD 1963 Kar. 868) in which a learned Judge of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan examined the scope of interference under section 561-A, Cr.
P. C. In cases where a criminal complaint is brought on the basis of contractual liability. In that case the learned Judge deprecated a growing tendency of shifting civil cases to a criminal Court for the purpose of circumventing the normal process of law and such a course is without doubt an abuse of the process of the Court.
4. On the other hand Mr. Maroof Ali Khan, learned Advocate for the complainant has urged before me that since the proceedings were at the very initial stage and for the further fact that the accused had never appeared before the trial Court, quashment would not only be premature but may smack of stifling the process of justice. The learned Advocate has relied on the case of Haq Nawaz v. Muhammad Afzal (PLD 1967 SC 354) but it is only the admission order. In such admission order their Lordships of the Supreme Court had not looked upon with favour the quashment of proceedings at the very initial stage of the case because such order of the High Court "gives impression of stifling prosecution". However, it must be pointed out that upon hearing the same case their Lordships did not disturb the order of the High Court and upheld the order of quashment.
This judgment is reported in 1968 P Cr. L J 867. Mr. Maroof Ali Khan has also invited my attention to the case of Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan (PLD 1967 SC 317) in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court had examined the principles underlying the exercise of inherent jurisdic--tion conferred on the High Court by section 561-1, Cr. P. C. No doubt inherent jurisdiction is neither an alternate jurisdiction nor an additional jurisdiction but still such inherent powers are preserved for exercise by the superior Courts in the interest of justice. I have no hesitation in saying that when a complaint discloses no criminal offence the allowing of such a complaint to proceed in Courts amounts to perversion of the purpose of law. Such situation cannot be lightly countenanced.
Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case I am left in no manner of doubt that the complainant in this case has resorted to a criminal Court solely for the purpose of circumventing the law and finding out an easy manner for enforcing his rights, if he has any. In such a view of the matter it will be sheer waste of public time and gross, abuse of law if this case is allowed to proceed and the accused is dragged from Karachi to Sukkur to face this prosecution.
5. In the result I allow this application and quash the proceedings in this complaint.