Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 430 of 1979, heard on 14th October, 1979.

---‑‑S. 561‑A‑Quashment of proceedings‑Two complaints, one filed after 6 months of occurrence and other after 11 or 12 months, showing 0 details of clothes and ornaments allegedly taken away by accused applicants‑No explanation for delay in filing complaints‑No report lodged with police in respect of offence of theft‑Held: Whole story incredible and unbelievable and complaint appearing false and bound to end in acquittal‑Impugned complaint and proceedings quashed‑Penal Code (XLV :of 1860), S'.380.

Sadiq Al: Khoja for Applicants.

Habib‑ur‑Rashid for Respondents.

Ghulam Ali for the State..

Date of hearing :14th October, 1979.

The applicants who are 9 in number have sought quashment of com plaint dated 17th February. 1977 filed by respondent Jagdish under sections 498, 380, 342/34, P. P. C. and the process issued on the same date under section 380, P. P. C. by Civil Judge and F. C. M., Umarkot against all the applicants.

The complaint stated that the complainant Jagdish .was married to Shrimati Mevi daughter of Jairam accused No. 1 and she was carrying a child. It was further alleged that about 6 months back the accused came to the house of complainant and asked him to allow his wife Sh. Mevi to accompany them for a marriage ceremony but the complainant did not agree. The complainant further alleged that when he was away to his shop the accused took away the lady along with trunks containing Silver and Gold Ornaments and clothes worth Rs. 10.000. The complainant further stated that he went to get his wife back after about a week but the accused avoided on one or the other pretext. It was further asserted that the lady was confined wrongfully by the accused. The learned Ist Class Magistrate recorded the statement of Lano and Meva Ram under section 202, Cr. P. C. and held that offences under sections 498, 342, P. P. C: had not been made out but that an offence under section 380, P. P. C. had. Been out, and therefore issued process under that section.

Mr. Saddiq Ali Khoja has argued that the complaint was malicious and it was designed bring pressure upon the accused/applicant to send back the wife of the complainant to him. Mr. Khoja showed me another complaint filed under section 342/498/ 34, P. P. C. by the same com plainant/Respondent Jagdish against two of the present applicants Jairam and Satram which was filed on 9th July, 1977, 5 months after the impugned complaint where the same type of allegations were made that about 11 or 12 months before the date of that complaint Jai Ram and Satram had come to the house of the complainant and enticed away Sh. Mevi and also took away the Ornaments and clothes given by the com plainant which approximately valued at Rs. 5,000. Thus, by method of calculation the other complaint which is not impugned in this application before me had alleged that in July or August, 1976 Jairam and Satram had taken away. Sh. Mevi with clothes and Ornaments worth Rs. 5,000 and same type of complaint lead been filed earlier on 17th February, 1977 which is the subject of the present proceeding where the same com plainant Jagdish had alleged that about ,b months back the accused had come to his house and taken away his wife along with clothes and ornaments valued at Rs. 10,000. The time of incident in the two come plaints seems to be coinciding with each other and it is surprising that in one complaint the clothes and ornaments are valued at Rs. 5,000 and in the other they are valued at Rs. 10,000. Furthermore, in one complaint only two accused are shown to have committed the offence while in the other complaint accused living in different parts of the province are alleged to have .committed the same offence, One complaint had (tea filed after 6 months and the .other complaint had been filed after 11 or12 months. No details of .clothes and Ornaments are mentioned in any complaint and no explanation for the delay in filing the complainant ha, been mentioned. Moreover, no report to the police was lodged in respect of the offences of theft. The whole story seems to be incredible and unbelievable and it seems that the purpose was only to get the wife back. The complaint impugned before me includes 9 persons some of whom are residents of Umarkot and some of them are residents of Khipro while two of them are residents of Mithi which is situated far distant from Umarkot and Khipro and it appears that all these relations of Sh. Mevi have been involved to harass them and pressurise them to send back Sh. Mevi. The complainant has cleverly avoided to show his wife Sh. Mevi as an accused by alleging that she is being illegally confined but he took no step for her production in Court o Thai It would be ascertained whether she was in fact illegally confined or she was staying away out of her own will. What seems probable is that Sh. Mevi has taken her belongings with her including the ornaments and clothes and she could not be said to have committed any offence in taking away her belongings.

In the circumstances of this case the complaint and the proceedings in persuance to the same are nothing but sheer harassment, the complaint is lacking in particulars and has been filed after 6 months of the alleged theft without any explanation of delay, and therefore seems to be a false and motivated complaint and it is bound to end in acquittal. Mr. Ghulam A t 9 Agha for the State has supported the quashment as according to him the complaint is frivolous and unjustified. Mr. Habibur Rasheed appear ing for respondent Jagdish has not been able to show any circumstance which could justify the filing of this complaint. I therefore quash the impugned complaint, and the proceedings pending under section 380, P. P. C. in the Court of Civil Judge and F. C. M., Umarkot against the present nine applicants.

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.