2003 PLP 1745 (MLD)
IMTIAZ HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1745 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | IMTIAZ HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1745 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1745 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1745 (MLD) (IMTIAZ HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Babar Waheed for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.498 & 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420/468/471
Pre arrest bail, confirmation of
Dispute between the parties was of civil nature i.e. settlement of accounts and proper forum for settling such dispute was Civil Court
Registration of case, in circumstances, prima facie had shown mala fide on part of prosecution and Investigating Agency
Certain amount was to be paid by accused to complainant, but cheques issued by accused were dishonoured
Question as to how far provisions of Ss.468/471, P.P.C. were attracted in circumstances, called for further inquiry
Offence of cheating under S.420, P.P.C. was a bailable offence and as a matter of right, accused was entitled to get bail in that offence
Ad interim pre- arrest bail already granted to accused stood confirmed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Babar Waheed for Petitioner. Muhammad Yaqub Asif Saud Khan for the Complainant. Abdul Hameed Chishti for the State. Date of hearing: 11th October, 2002. Seeks pre-arrest bail in case F. I. R. No. 154 of 2002, dated 12-5-2002 under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Old Anarkali, Lahore.
2. In nutshell the precise allegation against the petitioner is that he had business dealings with the complainant party. The petitioner with the intention to cheat the complainant party issued some cheques in lieu of the payment which was to be made by the petitioner to the complainant party. The said cheques were dishonoured by the bank.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. The bare reading of the F.I.R. shows that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature i.e. settlement of accounts and proper forum for settling the dispute is Civil Court. The registration of the present case in the circumstances, prima facie, shows the mala fide on the part of the prosecution and the Investigating Agency. Even otherwise, the precise allegation against the petitioner is that while transporting goods from Lahore to Karachi he used to hire vehicles of the complainant company; that about nine lacs and forty-four thousand rupees are to be paid by the petitioner in lieu of said transport charges; that the cheques issued by the petitioner were dishonoured by bank. In the said circumstances of the case, how far the provisions of section 468/471, P.P.C. are attracted calls for further inquiry. Similarly, the offence of cheating i.e. 420, P.P.C., is a bailable offence and as a matter of right petitioner is entitled to get bail in this offence. In this view of the matter, this bail application is allowed and ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 24-9-2002 stands confirmed against the same surety bonds. H.B.T./I-208/L Pre-arrest bail confirmed.