Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 240/Q of 1976, decided on 28th May 1976.

------S. 561‑A‑Quashment of proceedings‑Complaint based on, allegation that accused‑petitioners obtained jewellery and cash on promise of girl's hand although they had already made a prior commitment for giving her in marriage to someone else‑‑Excepting a vague assertion nothing in complaint to show that such a commitment actually existed‑Dragging parties to criminal Courts, in case negotiations for marriages break off, held, highly undesir able‑Proceedings quashed, in circumstances.‑‑(Quashment of proceedings].

Bashir Ahmad v. State 1968 P Cr. L J 1825; Wahid Bux v. State 1969 P Cr. L J 1317 and Allah Bux v. State 1973 P Cr. L J 104 rel.

Ch. Ghulam Murtaza Khan for Petitioner.

Sh. Khalil‑ur‑Rahman for Respondent No. 1.

Mian Ata‑ur‑Rahman for the State.

Date of hearing : 28th May 1976.

This as an application filed under section 561‑A. Cr. P. C, by the peti tioners for quashment of a case under section 420/406, P. P. C. instituted by respondent Barkat Ali through a direct complaint In which the petitioners have been summoned by the Magistrate Ist Class, Lyallpur.

2. The parties are related to each other. It has been alleged in the complaint that the engagement of Shaukat Ali, son of the complainant, with Mst. Razia, daughter of petitioner Munshi, took place about a year before and that the complainant spent a good deal of money in that con nection, that subsequently he gave certain ornaments, clothings and cash to the girt, that about a month before the complainant also made over Rs. 2,000 to the accused party for construction of house, but that the petitioners accused had already settled the engagement of the girl with someone else which facts they had concealed from the complainant and had thus obtained the valuables by cheating. The version in the complaint was supported in the summary statements recorded by the Magistrate.

3. From a perusal of the complaint I am inclined to the view that no foundation has been clearly laid for any offence under the Penal Code for which the petitioners could be tried. In the first place, there is no direct allegation that the accused party had backed out of their commitment. 1n the second place there is no basis worthwhile given in the complaint for the allegation that the accused had, at the relevant time, already promised the hand of the girl to some other person. Even the name of that person has not been mentioned. In the third place no proper description of the various articles has been furnished, nor has any receipt been cited in respect of the delivery of the articles or the cash of Rs. 2,000. In order that a case under section 420, P. P. C. be made out, there must be material to show that there had been cheating. If the accused party, at the relevant time, had already made a prior commitment for the marriage of the girl to someone else and by suppressing that fact obtained jewellery and cash from the complainant on the promise of the girl's hand, then this may amount to cheating. The complainant was related to the petitioners and as such could be expected to know from beforehand if any prior commitment had existed. In any case, except for the vague assertion, nothing has been said in the complaint to show that such a commitment had actually existed. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that Lal Din petitioner had instituted a complaint under section 406/420, P. P. C, against Barkat Ali respondent and others on 11‑8‑1975 (certified copy of that complaint has been furnished) in which Barkat Ali and others have been summoned and that on coming to know of that case, the present one was lodged as a counterblast. Be that as it may, even otherwise, as already observed, the complaint does not make out a case of cheating.

4. The complaint also does not make out a case of entrustment of property. The various articles bad, according to the complaint, been "given to the girl". Moreover, no proper description of the articles had been given that upon their recovery they could be identified to be the property of the complainant. In similar circumstance, convictions for offences of theft and robbery had been set aside. See Bashir Ahmad v. State (1968 P Cr. L J 1825) and Wahid Bux v. State (1969 P Cr. L J 1317), In regard to the delivery of Rs. 2,000 in cash, there is no assertion that any receipt had been obtained for the same. The transaction, if any has the appearance of a loan, and not of entrust ment, because the money had been given for the specific purpose of cons truction of house and upon a promise of return after a month.

5. The provision of section 203, Cr. P. C. gives the Magistrate the power to dismiss a complaint if in his opinion no ground for proceeding in the case has been made out. It is, therefore, incumbent upon every complainant to come the Court with sufficient material so that the Court can hold that there are grounds for proceeding. Where the party has failed in its duty to do so, it cannot be considered entitled to avail the process of law. The provision of section 203, Cr. P. C. is ostensibly meant for guarding against attempts to involve persons falsely or frivolously. It is not unusual that negotiations for marriages are broken off but it will be highly undesirables to drag the parties to a criminal Court on that account only. The Magistrate should, therefore have carefully scrutinized the complaint and the summary state ments before issuing the process. I am satisfied that the present complaint, as it is, deserves dismissal under section 203, Cr. P. C. In Allah Bux v. State (1973 P Cr. L J 104), the facts of which come quite close to the present facts, the criminal proceeding had been quashed.

6. The application is, therefore accepted and the criminal case under section 420/406 P. P. C. against the petitioner is quashed.

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.