1972 PLP 387 (SCMR)

SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents under sections 419 and 468, P.‑P. C. in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate, Lahore, who, after recording preliminary evidence, summoned the respondents vide his order dated the 13th of January 1969. The respondents appeared before the learned Magistrate, but thereafter took the matter to the High Court by a. petition under section 561‑A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the proceedings against them. The case against the respondents proceeded c n the allegations that respondent No. 1 Mst. Niazan Bibi had purchased bungalow No. 484, Shadman Colony, Gulberg Road, Lahore, from Muhammad Rashid, complainant, for a sum of Rs. 50,000, and that an agreement of sale was executed on the 17th of January 1967. A sum of Rs. 10,000 was paid by her as earnest money and another sum of Rs. 15,000 was paid on the 2nd of May 1967, and the possession of the bungalow was delivered to her. The complainant had mortgaged the bungalow in question to the House Building Finance Corporation for a sum of Rs. 19,000 with interest. It was alleged by the petitioner that subsequently the respondent changed her began to evade finalisation of the sale‑deed. The House Building Finance Corporation moved an application before the District Judge, Lahore, praying that the bungalow be put to auction for realisation of the loan amount due to the Corporation on that bungalow. Respondent No. 1, coming to know of these proceedings, deposited a sum of Rs. 21,000 with the National Bank of Pakistan, Lahore, for payment to the Corporation, which included the principal mortgage money of Rs. 19,000 and Rs. 2,000 as interest. In the result, Rs. 46,000 stood paid to the petitioner‑complainant out of the sale amount of Rs. 50,000, leaving only a balance of Rs. 4,

000. It was alleged that Muhammad Aslam, respondent No. 2 then purchased a stamp‑paper and got the draft deed typed on it and sent the same to the petitioner for his signatures. According to the complainant, the stamp‑paper was purchased in his name by Muhammad Aslam, respondent No. 2, who forged the signatures of the complainant on the register of the stamp‑vendor and also on the voucher for deposit into the Treasury. This forging of the signatures of the complainant on the register of the stamp‑vendor and on the voucher by Muhammad Aslam, respondent No. 2, in collusion with the co‑respondent Mst. Niazan Bibi, furnishes the sole basis for the petitioner's complaint against them under sections 419 and 468, P. P. C. The learned single Judge, while accepting the petition of the respondents under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C., has quashed the proceedings against them or tire ground that even accepting the allegation of the complainant to be true, no offence was disclosed against them either under section 419 or section 468, as no element of dishonesty was made out, which was a necessary ingredient of both sections 419 and

468. It is quite clear that the sale of the bungalow was effected by the petitioner in favour of respondent No. 1 Mst. Niazan Bibi, who had paid the full price for the same short of Rs. 4,

000. If the stamp‑paper had been purchased by the respondents in the name of the petitioner for purposes of executing the sale‑deed, it was obviously done with the intention of getting the deal finalised but the sale‑deed could not have been registered unless it was assented to and approved by the complainant‑vendor by putting his signatures on it and by getting the deed registered. We consider that the High Court was quite right in quashing the proceedings, which were instituted against the respondents, as on the allegations made in the complaint, no offence whatsoever was disclosed against the respondents. This petition is dismissed. Leave refused.