Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No.231/Q of 1985, decided on 22nd April, 1986.

‑‑‑S.561‑A‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 500/506/148/149‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑ According to accused, the complainant had filed frivolous private complaint against his wife and her relatives to pressurise them to settle family disputes‑‑Complainant failing to turn up before High Court in spite of his service‑‑Contents of petition going unchallenged‑ Absence of complainant, held, was clear proof of fact that he wanted to harass accused unnecessarily‑‑Law Courts, held further, were meant to protect legal rights of law‑abiding citizens rather than that they should be victimised by frivolous litigation s‑‑Proceedings quashed in circumstances.

Rao Hamid Mukhtar Khan for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Najm‑uz‑Zman, Asstt.A.‑G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 22nd April, 1986.

Mrs. Surrya Edwin, daughter of Padri Karim Bux, and five others have filed this petition under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. against v .Professor Javaid Jiwan Mall and the State.

2. The petitioner No.1, a teacher in Government Mission School, Shah Alam Market, Lahore, was married to Professor Javaid Jiwan Mall on 25th September, 1980. The spouses lived together till March, 1953. Later on they fell out. Mrs. Surrya Edwin filed a suit for dissolution of marriage at Lahore.

3. It is alleged that as a counter‑blast, her husband filed number, of frivolous suits against her, her brothers and other relatives at Gujranwala. The suits were for restitution of conjugal rights, for damages and for custody of children. It is alleged that when the High Court stayed proceedings at the instance of the petitioners, the respondent filed another suit. Ultimately all the suits were transferred to Lahore and except for .the petition for custody of children pending in the Court of Guardian Judge at Lahore, were disposed of.

4. On 21st May, 1983, the respondent filed a complaint under section 500150611481149, P.P.C. against his wife and her other relatives. This was to pressurise the petitioners so that the respondent may succeed in getting the custody of the children.

5. This petition came up for hearing before me on. 10th November, 1985, when the petitioners appeared in person. I issued notice, sent for the record and ordered that the petitioners need not appear before the Magistrate.

6. On 22nd March, 1986, A.A.‑G appeared for the State, but respondent No.1 did not turn up. I asked the office to report whether he had been served. On 25th March, 1986, the office submitted report that he had been served. The case was ordered to be set down for final hearing on 22nd April, 1986. On the aforesaid date counsel for the petitioners was present. Respondent No.1, in spite of service, did not turn up.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint of which proceedings are sought to be quashed is frivolous. The modus operandi of the respondent is to involve the petitioner Mrs. Surraya and her relatives in as many cases as possible so that she may ultimately yield to the pressure of respondent No.1 and act according to his wishes .

8. On merits, the learned counsel contended that respondent No.1, never reported the matter to the police and filed the complaint. According to respondent No.1, the alleged occurrence took place on 28th January, 1983. On the said date, petitioner No.1 was living with her husband and both resided as man and wife. Hence the question of any offence did not arise.

9. On the same data, i.e. 28th January, 1983, the respondent No.1's brother died in Gangs Ram Hospital, Lahore. The respondent was present at Lahore as he had to attend the funeral of his brother. Hence he could not be present at Gujranwala on the said date.

10. It was further submitted that, according to the respondent, the alleged occurrence took place on 28th January, 1983, but the complaint was filed on 21st May, 1983. ,

11. Learned counsel submitted that the aforesaid facts prove that the complaint against the petitioners was a clear case of abuse of process of Court.

12. As the respondent has not turned up to contest this petition, the facts mentioned above go unchallenged. I, therefore, need not discuss the contents of the complaint in detail.

13. The absence of the respondent is a clear proof of the fact that all that he wants is to unnecessarily harass Mrs. Surraya Edwin and her relatives. The law Courts are not meant for such type of litigation. They are to protect and safeguard legal and constitutional rights of law‑abiding citizens, rather than they should be victimised by such type of frivolous litigations.

14. I. therefore, accept this petition and quash the proceedings in the complaint titled, "Professor Javaid versus Manzoor‑ul‑Haq etc., pending in the Court of City Magistrate, Gurjranwala.

H. A. K. 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.