1987 PLP 795 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondent No.

1. Respondent No.2 in ‑person. Date of hearing: 18th February, 1987. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑ This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 6‑12‑1986 of the Lahore High Court whereby the application of the petitioners for quashment of the proceedings in a criminal case pending against them in the Court of a Magistrate at Narowal was rejected. 2.Petitioner No. 1 is the owner of a cinema house in Narowal while petitioner No. 2 is the gate‑keeper therein. Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Akram who are not party to this petition although they are present before us are also connected with the management of the cinema house; thus, Muhammad Amin is the son of petitioner No. 1 and Muhammad Akram is the Manager of the cinema house. On 17‑1‑1985 one Abdul Rashid moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot, alleging that four ears earlier the petitioners alongwith Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Akram had received a sum of Rs.11,200 from him on the promise that they would give him the contract for running the cinema canteen; subsequently, they went back on this promise and also refused to return the money. On the intervention of the Punchait Muhammad Amin refunded Rs.3, 200 to him and that the rest of the money was still being retained by them. On the basis of this application the Deputy Commissioner got a case under sections 420 and 406 registered against the petitioners. After investigations the local police submitted a challan in the Court of the Magistrate at Narowal.

3. The petitioners moved an application before the High Court for quashment of the proceedings on the ground that the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature and as such there was no question of cheating or misappropriation on their part. The High Court refused to interfere in the matter. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.

4. Both parties are present before us. The petitioners as well as Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Akram have refunded the entire amount except Rs.1, 500 to the complainant. The remaining amount is owing from Muhammad Akram who has promised that he would pay this amount to the complainant within a week. Mr. Muhammad Rashid Chughtai, Advocate, has given an assurance that in the event Muhammad Akram does not pay back the remaining amount to the complainant he would do so personally. The complainant is satisfied with this assurance.

5. On the face of it the dispute between the parties is of a civii nature. There is nothing on the record to indicate that at the time when the petitioners, Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Akram took the money from the complainant they had no intention or were not in a position to give the lease of the cinema canteen to the complainant. We would accordingly convert this petition into appeal and quash the proceedings against the petitioners; Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Akram pending in the Court of the Magistrate at Narowal. By a short order we have already directed that Muhammad Akram who is in custody be released if not required in any other case. S.Q./M‑49/S Order accordingly.