Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 288 of 1971, decided on 18th October 1971.
----S. 561-A-Quashment of proceedings-Accused alleged to have agreed to marry one of hi 's daughters with complainant on receipt of clothes and cash but to have stealthily changed residence and settled in another district --No dishonest intention at time of agreement, held, proved-Mere fact that accused changed mind and declined to give girl in marriage-Does not spell out dishonest intention -at time of agree ment-Entertainment of complaint, held, abuse of process of Court---Proceedings quashed---Penal Code (XLY a 1860), S. 420.
Muhammad All Shaikh for Applicant No. 1.
Muhammad Zafar for A.-G. for the State.
Habibur Rahman for Respondent No. 2.
Date of hearing: 18th October 1971.
This is an application under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. to quash the proceedings pending against the applicant under section 420, P. P. C. In the Court of Additional City Magistrate, Hyderabad. The parties are related to each other. Applicant No. 1 is Disband of applicant No. 2 while applicants Nos. 3 and 4 are others of applicant No. 1. Niamat Hussain filed a complaint, the Court of Additional City Magistrate, Hyderabad alleging at the applicants had come to Hyderabad and requested him to ange for a piece of land as they intended to settle there. He made the necessary arrangement. Applicants Nos. 1 and 2 had three grown-up daughters. Applicants Nos. 3 and 4 arranged his betrothal with one of the daughters of applicants 1 and 2. On sat occasion he gave clothes, ornaments and Rs. 3,000 in cash after some time the applicants stealthily left the place where they had settled and returned to Karachi.
Against this complaint the present application was filed on the ground that no criminal offence had been made out and therefore, the entertainment of the complaint by the learned Magistrate was abuse of the process of the Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as the State and I am of the view that no offence of cheating has been committed. There is nothing in the complaint to show even if the allegation are true, that the applicants had any dishonest intention at the inception of the agreement between the parties to give one of the girls in marriage to Niamat Hussain. The basic ingredients o deception is lacking in the present case. The mere fact that subsequently the applicants changed their mind and declined to give the girl in marriage does not necessarily mean they had dishonest intention at the time when the agreement was entered into.
In the circumstances, the entertainment of the complaint by the learned Magistrate is abuse of the process of the Court. The proceedings are, therefore, quashed.
Petition accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer