1990 PLP 1154 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑S.420‑‑‑Section 420 P. P. C. presupposes dishonest intention from the very, beginning. M. M. Aqil for Petitioner. S.S. Sarfraz Ahmed for the State. Respondent No. 2 in person. Date of hearing: 19th July, 1989. This is an application under section 561‑A of Criminal Procedure Code. Respondent Abdul Rehman Barohi had lodged F I R at Latifabad Police Station on 16‑11‑1989 stating that he had sold Toyota Pick‑up No. 4192/QA. for Rs. 1,25,000 to applicant Nooruddin. The applicant paid him Rs. 15,000 and promised to pay the balance within six months. He executed such an agreement in favour of the respondent No. 2 on a stamp paper. The applicant did not pay the balance as promised in spite of repeated demands and on the contrary fought with the respondent when he insisted on the same. The police challaned the case after usual investigation before the A. C. M. Latifiabad. A charge was framed to which the applicant pleaded not guilty. Statement of respondent No. 2 Abdul Rehman and P.Ws Nek Muhammad and Amir Hamza were recorded as eye‑witnesses while the statements of Baaz Muhammad Mashir and Investigating Officer Khan Nawaz were also recorded. An application under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. was submitted by the defence counsel which was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. Hence this application for quashment of proceedings. The agreement is said to have been entered into on 27‑3‑1986 while the FIR has been lodged on 16‑11‑1987. There is a delay of more than one year which is not explained. The so‑called agreement does not appear to bear the signature of the applicant and the possibility of its having been concocted cannot be ruled out. Section 420, P. P. C. presupposes dishonest, intention from the very beginning. There is no allegation that applicant had any such intention at the time when he purchased the pick‑up. The applicant has denied having purchased any such pick‑up and has alleged that he has been falsely implicated. Apart from that the transaction if at all is of a civil nature, would not amount to a criminal offence. Reliance is placed on the case of Aba Umar Shaikh v. Abdul Rehman Shah and another reported in 1981 P Cr. L J 455 where a complaint before the Magistrate regarding credit of Rs. 1,500 in the transaction of purchase of cattle was held to be a liability of civil nature and the proceedings were quashed. Another ruling reported in 1984 P Cr. L J 2371 Syed Fazal Hussain v. The State is on identical facts. In this ruling FIR was lodged after months and no explanation for delay was given. The dispute between the complainant and the accused was over bargain of a Toyota Car and the balance amount due therefrom. The proceedings were quashed by this Court as the transaction was held to be a liability of civil nature. Both these rulings are of this Court. The learned counsel has also relied on the case of Ghulam Rasul v. Ch. Saleem Shad reported in 1986 P Cr. L J 823 (2) which is a ruling of Lahore High Court where section 506 P P C has been explained so as to not to include mere hurling of abuses or issuing of threats simpliciter. I am, therefore, satisfied that the proceedings before the trial Court are mala fide and abuse of the process of Court. Consequently I quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 40 of 1988 and acquit applicant Nooruddin therefrom. His bail bonds are cancelled. N.H.Q./N‑253/K Proceedings quashed.