P L D 1950 Baluchistan 7 (PLP)

Public prosecutor, for Crown. ORDER.‑

This is a petition under section 439 read section 561‑A of Criminal Procedure Code for revision the order of City Magistrate, Quetta, dated 19th September 1949, whereby a process was issued against the accused petitioners and for quashing the entire proceedings taken in said Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued at sc length on three points, namely (1) that the courts Baluchistan have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of alleged offence of cheating, (2) that in fact no cheating to place and (3) that the lower Court has erred in take cognizance of the offence and has failed in its duty in examine the accused's witnesses to the extent necessary to establish a prima facie case against the accused. It is first necessary for this Court to decide whether allegations made against the accused prima facie constitute case of cheating or whether this is a case of a civil nature which should be decided by the Civil Courts. In the event a decision to the effect that this case is of civil nature, will not be necessary to consider the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the accused in regard to the taking cognizance in this case by the lower Court. Learned counsel for the accused has referred me to ruling, A I R 1938 Mad. p 129, in which it was held the person who issued a post dated cheque which, on presentation to the bank, was subsequently dishonoured could not accused of cheating but that redress to the complainant shot lie to a Civil Court. Moreover, illustration (g) to section 4 Indian Penal Code would appear to be on all fours with the facts of this case mentioned in the written complaint at substantiated by the written evidence already recorded. The alleged facts in this case disclose that a representative of t firm of the accused visited Quetta anti subsequently an agreement was entered into between the complainant and the & of the accused at Karachi to supply cloth. The accused fir failed to supply the cloth despite the fact that advance money was paid to them in Karachi. The learned counsel for the complainant has endeavour to argue that a case of cheating against the accused has bet made out because of the misrepresentation made by the fins representative, whose name is not known, in Quetta. In n considered opinion therefore, on the basis of the facts already recorded in the lower Court and after hearing the argument no case of cheating has been made Cut against the accuse Whatever the business arrangements between the complainant and the firm of the accused may be, the recorded evidence and the written disclose a case of breach of contract only the facts, as already recorded, are distinctly similar to the referred to in illustration (g) mentioned above. The requirements of section 420, Indian Penal Code are to the effect that the complainant was deceived and that t was dishonestly induced to part with his property. Deception if it was indeed practiced in this case, was admitted by the counsel for the complainant to have been practised by some unknown representative in Quetta. There is no evidence on record to the effect that the accused, who have never visited Quetta. ever practised deception here. Moreover, the evidence had disclosed no dishonest intention on the part of the accused. In the circumstances neither of the essential ingredients of section 120, Indian Penal Code has been proved against the accused and the criminal proceedings against them must fail. Further consideration must also be given to the arguments adduced regarding jurisdiction of the Courts of Baluchistan. If it is‑ held that no Court in Baluchistan has jurisdiction to try this criminal case, it follows automatically that the proceedings against the accused must be quashed. Counsel for complainant admits before this Court that payment was made in Karachi ; he further admits that none of the accused have ever visited Quetta. The transaction was therefore completed in Karachi and even if this transaction were to be considered as forming part of an act to cheat, the offence of cheating could not be completed until the complainant had actually parted with his money. As this part of the transaction took place in Karachi, as the accused have never visited Quetta, it is abundantly clear that no Court of Baluchistan could have jurisdiction to take cognizance of an alleged offence which took place in Karachi. This therefore is an additional reason for concluding that proceedings in the City Magistrate's Court at Quetta are illegal for want of proper jurisdiction the proceedings must, on these grounds also, be quashed. The Public Prosecutor, in his argument before this Court, has stated that no case of cheating has been made out and he has also drawn my attention to the desirability of Magistrates making full use of the provisions of section 200, Criminal P. C. in examining complainants and their witnesses, if necessary, before issuing processes against accused persons. In this case, the evidence so for recorded is extremely meagre and it must be stressed on all Magistrates that they must make proper use of this section in the examination of complainants and their witnesses before proceeding to issue processes against accused persons. I would emphasise that one of the main objects of section 200, Criminal P. C. is to protect the public against false, frivolous or vexatious complaints filed against them in Criminal courts and that Magistrates must not lightly accept written complaints and proceed to issue processes until they have thoroughly shifted the allegations made against the accused and are satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out against those who are, accused of criminal offences. As I hold that no criminal case of cheating has been established against the accused, I direct that these criminal proceedings against the three accused persons shall be quashed. The complainant, if so advised, will be at liberty to pursue his claims against the accused in any civil court, having jurisdiction to certain the suit. K.M.A. Petition accepted.