2007 P Cr (PLP)

IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, J.

Through this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of F.I.R. No.493 dated 9-12-2005 registered under sections 379, 420, 406, 506, 427, 489-F and 411, P.P.C. at Police Station City Lodhran.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution case as contained in the F.I.R. is that respondent No.3 filed an application to respondent No.2, alleging that he is an owner of G.O. Rent A Car Service, Multan. On 19-9-2005, Amjad Nawaz (Petitioner), Ahmad Nawaz (respondent No.6) and Mst. Nighat Zohra (respondent No.5) came to him and obtained a vehicle Suzuki Mehran bearing Registration No.LRZ-7660 on 800 daily on rent. The petitioner issued a cheque for Rs.4,00,000 as security and Mst. Nighat Zohra stood guarantor of the said cheque and the cheque was dishonoured on 5-12-2005 due to closing of account and on 9-12-2005 all the three accused threatened the complainant to kill.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the contents of the F.I.R. may be admitted as true for the sake of arguments, no criminal offence was made out from the contents of the F.I.R. because it is clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. that the agreement was made between the parties for the lease of vehicle on daily rent and violation of such agreement constitutes only civil liability as provided in section 73 of the Contract Act and thus, the registration of F.I.R. is abuse of process of law; that according to F.I.R. cheque amounting to Rs.4,00,000 was given to respondent No.3 by the petitioner as security and also without consideration and under the provisions of section 43 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a negotiable instrument without consideration creates no obligation of payment between the parties to the. transaction and, in this way no obligation is attached with the cheque in dispute and offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. was not made out; that even according to the F.I.R., the vehicle was given on rent at the rate of Rs.800 per day for unspecified period and vehicle was not entrusted as Amanat so the offence of criminal breach of trust' punishable under section 406, P.P.C. was not made out; that the alleged agreement attached with the police file has many blank columns and did not reveal the presence of A.C. CNG in car and also giving of cheque; that under the provisions of section ,378, P.P.C., offence of theft could only be constituted if the moveable property dishonestly moves out of possession of any person without that person's consent and in the present case, the car was alleged to be in the possession of the petitioner so the offences under sections 379 and 411, P.P.C. are not made out; that under the provisions of section 503, P.P.C., offence of criminal intimidation was also not made out because no act is alleged to do for which he is not legally bound to do arid simple threat did not constitute offence under section

506. P.P.C.; that the cheque in dispute has not been issued to the complainant in his name but was stolen by one Badar Munir and filled in his name and also affixed petitioner's forged signatures; that mala fides of the complainant are clear from the fact that he involved the brother of the petitioner as well as wife of the petitioner; that with the connivance of two retired D.S.Ps., namely, Abdul Hafeez Shah and Fazal Karim, police mala fidely tampered the record of the case by adding different sections in the F.I.R. with reference to different Zimnis; that rnala. fide of the complainant also reveals from the fact that he has registered F.I.R. No.189 of 2004 dated 30-10-24004 under section 489-F, P.P.C. at Police .Station Old Kotwali Multan for the same car mentioned in the F.I.R.; that the complainant party is in habit to registration of F.I.Rs. on the similar story to blackmail the public to get money. In support of these contentions, reliance is placed upon Maj. (Retired) Javed Inayat v. The State PLD 2006 Lah. 752, Muhammad Younas and another v. The State 2006 PCr.LJ 994, Muhammad Ayoub v. Rana Abdul Rehman 2006 YLR 1852, Major Anwar-ul-Haq v. The State PLD 2005 Lah. 607, Syed Safdar Ali Rizvi v. S.H.O. 2006 PCr.LJ 187 and Punjab National Bank v. Surendar Parsad Sinha 1994 PSC (Criminal) 768.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed quashing of the F.I.R., contending that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and he issued the remained in dispute which was dishonoured on presentation and also remained absconder for along period.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the State and the complainant and perused the record.

6. Perusal of the agreement dated 19-9-2005 (Annexure "D") which is stated to have executed by the petitioner reveals that issuing of any cheque as alleged in the F.I.R. is not mentioned. According to the F.I.R., the petitioner had obtained vehicle Suzuki Mehran bearing Registration No.LRZ-7660 Model 2004 white colour AC/CNG on Rs.800 daily on rent and as security gave cheque of Rs.4,00,000 to respondent No.3 but this fact does not tally with the agreement as, it is only mentioned in the agreement that after 2000 kilometers, the party will be responsible to consume oil from its own pocket, that the vehicle will be for one month and month rent will be Rs.22,

000. In these circumstances, the alleged delivery of cheque to the complainant by the petitioner is not substantiated. Further admittedly the agreement had been executed between the parties which brings the case into the ambit of civil liability. Mala fides of the complainant clearly show that he in connivance with two retired D.S.Ps., namely, Abdul Hafeez and Fazal Karim, has manipulated the instant F.I.R. by adding different sections in the F.I.R. with reference to different Zimnis. Mala fides of the complainant also reveal from the fact that he has registered F.I.R. No.189 of 2004 dated 30-10-2004 under section 489-F, P.P.C. at Police Station Old Kotwali Multan regarding the same mentioned in the present F.I.R. Therefore, it appears that the complainant is in the habit of registering F.I.Rs. on the similar story to blackmail the public to get money. Moreover, it does not appeal to the mind that when rent of the car is Rs.800 per day and worth of a new car is not more than Rs.3,00,000, how is the petitioner issuing a cheque of Rs.4,00,000 to be cashed immediately. The above facts substantiate the contentions of the petitioner.

7. In view of the above circumstances, this writ petition is accepted and F.I.R. No.493' dated 9-12-2005 registered under sections 379, 420, 406, 506, 427, 489-F and 411, P.P.C. at Police Station City Lodhran is quashed. H.B.T./A-168/L Petition accepted.