2016 PLP 272 (YLR)
ALLA-UD-DIN — Petitioner Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 272 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Muhammad Kazim Raza Shamsi, J |
| Parties | ALLA-UD-DIN — Petitioner Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 272 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 272 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Muhammad Kazim Raza Shamsi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 272 (YLR) (ALLA-UD-DIN — Petitioner Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ajmal Adil for Petitioner.
- Wali Muhammad Khan, A.A.-G. and Sarfraz, A.S.-I. for Respondents.
- Salman Arif for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 22-A & 154
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 418 & 423
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to person whose interest offender is bound to protect, dishonest or fraudulent execution of deed of transfer containing false statement of consideration
Scope
Information in cognizable offences
Registration of FIR
Civil dispute, determination of
Petition for registration of FIR against respondent-accused alleging that accused, showing himself absolute owner of subject property, had received earnest money as part payment of sale consideration, but the property later on turned out to have been pledged with Bank, and that accused had deprived petitioner from huge amount by fraud
Justice of Peace directed police to register case against respondent
Respondent-accused filed civil suit for cancellation of sale agreement, which was later withdrawn on basis of agreement between the parties
During execution proceedings of Bank recovery decree, application was filed for deposit of decretal amount on behalf of respondent-accused
Banking Court, allowing said application, directed to deposit decretal amount, but he failed to do so
No criminal liability against-petitioner was established
Ex-officio Justice of Peace, while passing impugned order, had not properly appreciated facts of the present case; order had been passed in mechanical manner, and same was, therefore, not sustainable in eyes of law
Order in question was set aside
Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.
This petition filed in terms of Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is directed against an order dated 24.02.2014 passed by learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Faisalabad, whereby the application filed by respondent No. 2 under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. was accepted and SHO was directed to record his statement and proceed under section 154, Cr.P.C.
2. In his application respondent No.2 alleged that the petitioner while posing himself as owner of property bearing khasra No.19/4, Square No.48, situated in Chak No.279/RB, Tehsil and District Faisalabad sold said property to him for a total consideration of Rs.53 lacs and received Rs.50 lacs on different occasions. Qamar-ud-Din and Basit, other proposed accused, verified the ownership of the petitioner and assured that the property was free from encumbrances. However, after some time when it transpired that the property was pledged with Habib Bank Limited the petitioner with the intervention of respectables demanded return of the sale consideration but the petitioner put off the payment on one pretext or other. Subsequently when the suit of the Bank for recovery was decreed the petitioner promised to transfer the property in favour of respondent No.2 after clearance of bank liability. In the backdrop of above facts, the respondent had complained that the petitioner and other proposed accused had deprived him from huge amount by fraud.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is noticed that allegedly the parties entered into an agreement for sale of disputed property on 04.02.2012 for a total consideration of Rs.53 lacs and out of which Rs.15 lacs was received by the petitioner as earnest money. However, the petitioner filed a suit for cancellation of said agreement on the ground that the same was forged and fabricated one. During the pendency of said suit the parties entered into another agreement and resultantly the suit was withdrawn by the petitioner on 13.6.2013. In the meanwhile the Habib Bank Limited, with whom the disputed property was pledged, after securing decree against the petitioner filed execution petition and in execution proceedings respondent No.2 filed an application for deposit of decretal amount on behalf of the petitioner/judgment debtor, which application was allowed by the learned Banking Court and respondent No.2 was directed to deposit the decretal amount within seven days but he failed to do so. Respondent No.2 after his failure to deposit the decretal amount has tried to give colour of civil dispute into criminal one. From the resume of afore-noted facts it is clear that the no criminal liability is established against the petitioner. Learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace while passing the impugned order had not properly appreciated the afore- noted facts and in a mechanical manner had issued direction for registration of the case against the petitioner, which order is not sustainable in the eyes of law thus warrants interference of this court.
4. For the foregoing reasons, instant petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, resulting into dismissal of the application of respondent No.2 filed under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. SL/A-143/L Petition allowed.