1969 P Cr (PLP)

Azizullah K. Shaikh for Petitioner. Samandar Khan for Respondent No.

1. Noordin Sarki for the State. Date of hearing : 9th September 1968. This application has been filed under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings started on a complaint lodged by one Noor Ahmad before the Sub‑Judge and First Class Magistrate, Mirpur Mathelo.

2. The facts out of which this complaint arises are that the accused who, according to the complainant, had become friendly with him, had gone to Mirpur Matlielo where the complainant showed his desire for setting up a cattle‑pan at Karachi and also indicated his desire to purchase a plot of land. The accused, ‑who is the applicant before me is alleged to have told him that there were plots available in Karachi and that when he went there, he would try to find out a plot for him and let him know about it. It is at this stage that the complainant is alleged to have passed on a sum of Rs. 6,000 to the applicant for being kept with him with a view to purchase a plot of land. According to him, neither the plot was purchased nor was the amount of Rs. 6,000 returned to him. On these facts after the complainant was examined under section 200, Cr. P. C. the Sub‑Judge and F. C. M. passed an order on lst July 1967 directing the process of bailable warrants in the sum of Rs. 200 to be issued against the applicant, after being of the view that the offence prima facie fell under section 420, P. P. C.

3. Even if the complaint were to be believed word for word, in my opinion, an offence under section 420, P. P. C. cannot be remotely said to have been established for the purpose of issue of process. It is admitted in the complaint that the applicant never suggested to the complainant for setting up a cattle‑pan at Karachi nor did he suggest to him that he should purchase a plot there. It was the complainant‑respondent who asked the applicant to find out a plot for him for which the applicant told him that after he found out a plot he would let him know about it. Despite there being no demand from the applicant for any money to be paid to him for the purchase of a plot, the complainant forced Rs. 6,000 on the applicant for being kept by him for the purpose of purchasing a plot. It is admitted that the respondent did not take any receipt or writing from the applicant for the amount of Rs. 6,000, he gave to him. It is also nowhere mentioned in the complaint that he paid this amount of Rs. 6,000 to the applicant in the presence of anybody. It is inconceivable in the extreme that a person would come out with a huge sum of Rs. 6,000 in a village and give to a person who lived in Karachi without there being a demand from him for any amount and yet have no document in support of fact that this amount was paid to him. In my opinion since the money paid to the applicant was not the result of inducement coming from the applicant an offence under section 420, P. P. C. cannot by any stretch A of imagination, be said to have been established. The learned Magistrate wrongly issued process for an offence under section 420, P. P. C. On this view of the matter, I am of the view that the process of the Court is obviously abused by dragging a person to a far off place in Sukkur District from Karachi to face prosecution on a frivolous complaint. The proceedings filed on complaint by Noor Ahmad in the Court of the Sub‑Judge and F. C. M. are consequently quashed. Proceedings quashed.