JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for quashing the proceedings of the criminal complaint tilted, ‘Dr. Syed Basharat Mumtaz Hussain Shah vs Syed Bhasharat Hussain Shah” under Sections 499 and 500 IPC pending before the court of learned Sub-Judge Surankote (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’), on the ground that the petitioner has never used such words for the respondent as alleged in the complaint and the alleged recording would show that the petitioner did not utter such words for the respondent. It is also urged by the petitioner that the petitioner referred to those people, in general, who were running after worldly status by wrong means and doing sins and has never named any person including the respondent. It is also contended that the plaint filed by the respondent was rejected and because of civil dispute, the present complaint has been filed just to harass the petitioner. 2. Objections stand filed by the respondents, stating therein that the suit with regard to the Waqf property was filed by the respondent one month after the filing of the complaint, which clearly proves that there was no civil dispute pending between the respondent and the petitioner prior to the filing of the complaint. The petitioner named the respondent while delivering sermons during the Friday prayers at Jamia Masjid, Surankote on 01.01.2021 i.e. the date of occurrence and he deliberately used filthy, abusive and defamatory words against the respondent. The video of the incident was recorded by some people participating in the Friday prayers when the petitioner named the respondent and started using abusive language that the respondent was a drunkard, rapist, criminal and remained involved in the criminal acts during whole of his life and it was done by the petitioner solely to lower down the reputation and image of the respondent. It is further stated that after the process was issued, the complainant was examined and two witnesses were also produced by the complainant-respondent, who have been cross- examined by the petitioner before filing of the present petition and the present petition has been filed just to stall the proceedings before the learned trial court. 3. Mr. K. M. Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has not named the respondent during his sermons and the false and frivolous proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner because of civil dispute. 3. Mr. K. M. Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has not named the respondent during his sermons and the false and frivolous proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner because of civil dispute. He has further argued that in the video placed on record by the petitioner, the name of the respondent nowhere figures in the sermons of the petitioner. 4. Per contra, Mr. Shakoor Ahmed Malik, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the petitioner had, in fact, named the respondent and thereafter used defamatory words just to defame the respondent, who has retired as Deputy Director, Health Services and the trial has begun and even statements of the witnesses have also been recorded. PW Mohd. Rashid Khan has clearly stated about the defamatory language used by the petitioner during sermons on 01.01.2021. 5. Heard and perused the record. 6. A perusal of the record reveals that the respondent filed a complaint before the Sub-Judge, Surankote under Sections 499 and 500 IPC on 07.01.2021 alleging therein that the petitioner on 01.01.2021 while addressing the congregation on loudspeaker during Friday prayers deliberately used filthy, abusive and defamatory words against the respondent that the respondent was a drunkard, rapist and criminal and throughout his life remained involved in criminal acts. The petitioner deliberately used these words to lower the image and reputation of the petitioner among the public. The respondent has also placed on record CD containing the alleged defamatory language used by the petitioner during sermons. 7. The learned trial court after recording the statement of the complainant and one witness, has issued the process against the petitioner. Mr. K. M. Bhatti has contended that the petitioner has never used the defamatory language during his address on the alleged day of incident. The respondent has annexed the CD alongwith complaint with regard to the sermons delivered by the petitioner. The trial has started and the statements of the complainant and two witnesses have already been recorded. PW Mohd. Rashid Khan has stated that during sermons, the petitioner took the name of the respondent and used defamatory language. The contention of the petitioner that he did not name the petitioner, as in the recording, the name of the petitioner is nowhere mentioned, cannot be considered at this stage. PW Mohd. Rashid Khan has stated that during sermons, the petitioner took the name of the respondent and used defamatory language. The contention of the petitioner that he did not name the petitioner, as in the recording, the name of the petitioner is nowhere mentioned, cannot be considered at this stage. Once the trial has started and the complainant and two witnesses have been examined, it is for the trial court to arrive at a conclusion after due appreciation of the evidence as to whether the petitioner has committed any offence or not. The petitioner has raised disputed questions of facts, which cannot be considered at this stage while examining the legality of the proceedings pending before the learned trial court pursuant to the complaint filed by the respondent. 8. Viewed thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petition is dismissed , leaving the petitioner free to raise the grounds urged in the present petition during the trial. Needless, to say that this Court has not made any observation with regard to the merits of the claim of either of the parties.