1971 PLP 106 (SCMR)
ABDUL GHANI‑Petitioner Versus Hafiz ABDUL KHALIQ RAHMANI AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1971 PLP 106 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Hamoodur Rahman, C. J., Muhammad Yaqub Ali |
| Parties | ABDUL GHANI‑Petitioner Versus Hafiz ABDUL KHALIQ RAHMANI AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1971 PLP 106 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1971 PLP 106 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Hamoodur Rahman, C. J., Muhammad Yaqub Ali.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1971 PLP 106 (SCMR) (ABDUL GHANI‑Petitioner Versus Hafiz ABDUL KHALIQ RAHMANI AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 17th August 1970.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 2nd February 1970, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 404 of 1969). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561‑A‑G filing civil suit for recovery of amount alleged to have been advanced as loan to Suit dismissed after full dressed trial by civil Court‑G, there upon, after lapse of 4 years filing complaint under S. 420, P. P. C. Criminal proceedings, in circumstances, held,, rightly quashed by High Court. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑The petitioner alleges that the respondent No. 1 fraudulently and dishonestly induced the peti tioner to lend him a sum of Rs. 1,250 on the 7th of August 1960. The intention, it is alleged, of the respondent No. 1 was never to repay the said amount. In 1963 the petitioner filed a civil suit in the Court of Small Causes, Karachi, for the recovery of the said amount. The res pondent No. 1 denied his signature on the receipt. The suit was dismissed on the ground that the signature on the receipt did not tally with the specimen signature of the respondent No. 1 obtained by the Court. This order of the learned Judge of Small Causes Court was upheld even in revision by the High Court. Some four years thereafter the petitioner lodged a private complaint under section 420 of the Penal Code in the Court of the Additional City Magistrate, Karachi, but this complaint was dismissed after recording the statement of the petitioner, on the ground that the dispute was of a civil nature and had already been decided by a competent Court. On revision, however, the Additional Sessions Judge of Karachi set aside the order and remanded the case back to the Magistrate for further enquiry. After this process was issued against the respondent No. 1 and evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses was taken. At this stage the respondent No. 1 moved the High Court under section 561‑A read with section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a learned Single Judge of the West Pakistan High Court, Karachi Bench, quashed the proceedings pending before the Magistrate after a careful examination of the relevant law on the subject. The petitioner, now has appeared in person, now seeks special leave to appeal, but on the facts stated above we see no ground for interference at all. The High Court undoubtedly has the jurisdiction to quash proceedings under section 561‑A if it is satisfied that the proceedings amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. In the present case, the very fact that the petitioner filed the criminal complaint four years after the disposal of the suit clearly indicated that this complaint was not a bona fide one. In any event, the very filing of a civil suit indicated that the dis pute was of a civil nature. In the circumstances, if he had any grievance against the order of the Judge of the Small Causes Court and of the High Court in revision, he should have. taken steps to challenge the High Court's decision and not waited for four years and then thought of this device of filing a criminal complaint. We are in entire agreement with the High Court that this complaint was an abuse of the process of the Court and the proceedings arising therefrom had rightly been quashed. We accordingly, dismiss this petition. Leave refused.