2006 P Cr (PLP)

ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.

Through this petition the petitioner has sought quashing of F.I.R. No.22 registered at Police Station Batala Colony, Faisalabad on 8-1-2006 for offences under sections 406 and 506, P.P.C. in respect of an alleged criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation committed by the petitioner and his co-accused, i.e. respondent No.6 herein.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance and have straightaway found that the facts alleged in the impugned F.I.R. do not constitute the offences invoked therein. According to the F.I.R. some amount of money was given by the complainant to the petitioner for the purposes of doing business therewith and for giving profit to the complainant therefrom. An offence of criminal breach of trust defined by section 405, P.P.C. is constituted and the same is punishable under section 406, P.P.C. if some property is given on trust and the same property is to be returned. In the case in hand it was not the complainant's case that the same currency notes which had been given by him to the petitioner were to be kept by the petitioner by way of a trust and the same currency notes were to be returned to the complainant. It is a settled proposition by now that if some money is given to somebody for the purpose of investment in some business and an equivalent amount of money along with profits over the same are to be returned to the person giving the money in the first instance then such a business transaction does not attract the provisions of section 405, P.P.C. read with section 406, P.P.C. because in such a case the same property is not to be returned but what is to be returned is its equivalent property along with profits. In a case of this nature the matter is not of entrustment of property but is simply one of investment of property.

3. As regards the provisions of section 506, P.P.C. invoked in the impugned F.I.R. it has been noticed by me that no date, time, or place of criminal intimidation by the petitioner and his co-accused have been specified in the impugned F.I.R. It goes without saying that no person can be prosecuted on the basis of vague and unspecific allegations. Even during the investigation no relevant detail about the alleged criminal intimidation has been brought on the record of investigation and, thus, in case of submission of a challan in that regard the trial Court shall be in no position to frame a charge in that respect against the petitioner and his co-accused.

4. A perusal of the impugned F.I.R. itself shows that there is an outstanding business dispute between the parties which dispute has all the trappings of a civil dispute. It appears that through lodging the impugned F.I.R. the complainant has tried to convert a civil and business dispute into a criminal case so as to bring the weight of criminal law to bear upon the petitioner and his co-accused in order to extract concessions in that civil dispute. This exercise on the part of the complainant appears to be actuated by nothing but malice which cannot be allowed by this Court to be perpetuated. This writ petition is, therefore, allowed with no order as to costs and the impugned F.I.R. is hereby quashed. S.M.B./S-29/L Petition allowed.