Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 204 and 256 of 1970, decided on 24th August 1970.

S. 561‑A‑‑Quashment of proceedings‑Two complaints of criminal misappropriation of articles of jewellery and household, one by husband against wife and other by wife against husband‑Relationship between parties, such as not leading to belief of existence of dishonest intention at time of removal of goods or subsequently‑Proceedings apparently initiated with a view to compel other side to come to terms Allegations of nature constituting civil liability‑Continuance of proceedings, held, amounted 'to abuse' of process of Court‑Proceedings quashed‑Penal Code; (XLV of 1960), S. 403.

Salima Nasiruddin for Applicants.

Murtaza Hussain for the State.

Kh. Adeel Ahmed for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing : 24th August 1970.

This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous Applica tions 204/70 and 256/70: Criminal Misc., Application No. 204/70 arises out of a. complaint filed in the Court of A, C. M., No. 21, Karachi in which it was alleged by respondent No. 2, that applicant No. 3, who is the wife of respondent No. 2, had left the house, and taken away the articles of jewellery and other household goods from the house during his absence. When he returned he found the house locked and then he went to the house of applicants 1 and 2, where she resided, and an assurance was given to him by those two applicants that applicant No. 3 could not leave the valuable articles in the house without there being anyone in it and had therefore brought them with her and that these articles will be restored after some time when applicant No. 3 returns to his house. Respondent No. 2 acted on this assurance for sometime and did not press for the restoration of these articles during that interval. Thereafter when the applicant No. 3 did not return to his house, respondent No. 2 started pressing for the return of the articles, whereupon the applicants denied the removal of those articles from his house and threatened him with dire consequences. He then filed this complaint against the applicants on 3rd February 1970. The learned Magistrate after examining respondent No. 2 and his witnesses issued process against the applicants in respect of an offence under section 403, P. P. C. The case has not advanced any further beyond this stage.

2. In Criminal Misc. Application No. 256/70, respondent Mst. Atiya Begum filed a complaint against her husband, applicant No. 1, his father and mother on 25th February 1970 in the Court of A. C. M. No. 29, Karachi, in which she alleged that they had misappropriated her "Jahez and jewellery" valued at Rs. 8,000. She had not taken them with her when she left the house on 6^th December 1969. The learned Magistrate after examining Mst. Atiya Begum and her witnesses issued process in respect of offences under section 403/406, P. P. C. against Muhammad Ibrahim, her husband, and his parents Imamuddin and Bhagan Bai. The applicants in both these applications have applied to this Court for the quashment of the proceedings now pending in the Court of the Additional City Magistrate No. 1, Karachi.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the complaints filed in both these cases. One party has alleged against the other with regard to the removal of articles and of retaining the other's property. In the relation in which they stand it is not possible to accept that at that time or later on there could have been any dishonest intention either to misappropriate or convert the property which was lawfully in the possession of the other at the time the incidents were alleged to have happened. The proceedings appear to have been initiated with a view to compel the other side to come to terms; and the allegations in the complaints appear to be of a nature which constitute a civil liability for the return of the property but not a criminal offence. I would, however; refrain from expressing on the question as to the lawful right of either party to hold, or to possess the disputed articles, for that will be .a matter for consideration before any other competent Court which under the law is authorised to adjudicate on that aspect.

4. For the foregoing reasons I am of the view that the continuance of the proceedings in both the cases amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court and I would quash the a proceedings pending in the Court of Additional City Magistrate No., 1, Karachi, against the applicants in both the petitions and accept their petitions.

Petitions accepted. Proceedings quashed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.