1975 P Cr (PLP)

Mr. Nooruddin Sarki the learned Advocate for respondent/complainant stated before me that the petitioners/accused had acted dishonestly because initially they intimated the respondent/complainant that the goods in ques tion had been sold at the rate of Rs. 68 per maund but subsequently the respondent/complainant was told that the buyer had backed out and the price which the goods were likely to fetch was much lower. I must initially say that this is not the allegation in the complaint but from the correspon dence that transpired between the parties the position appears to be clear that the goods in question bad actually been agreed to be sold by the petitioners/accused to some customer but the said customer had backed out. In the same letter the petitioners /accused asked the respondent/com plainant to take away their goods and pay the outstanding amount to them. It will be of benefit to reproduce that letter which reads as under:‑ "PAK MAKRAN COMMERCIAL AGENCY 28, KARACHI Registered A. D. 28‑12‑1973. Messrs Seth Gurnornal Srichand, Assalam‑Alaikum, You are well aware that bargain of 300 bags account Dilmurad and 135 bags account Ambumal was cancelled due to non‑delivery by the buyer. This information was given personally to your partner 5richand and conveyed to you. We regret to say, being aware of all this by you and Srichand, yet you go to various people at various places and talk unnecessarily to try to defame our office. For your satisfaction we took personally Mr. Srichand to the broker and buyer. But we regret to say in spite of all this satisfaction yet he goes to various persons and talks about it. We have old relations with you and to maintain the same we request you to kindly pay our amount and take away your goods so that our relations are not deteriorated further. Yours faithfully, Pak Makran Commercial Agency." The above letter would clearly show that the petitioners/accused had clearly intimated the respondent/complainant in regard to former's Inability to sell the goods and they even asked the respondent/complainant to take away the goods after settling the accounts. In my view such conduct cannot, be called dishonest and in any case no wrongful loss has been causes to the respondent/complainant on account of any act of the petitioners accused. I must also state that the respondent/complainant had concealed some very material facts in the complaint and such concealment was with a design to keep the nature of transaction between the parties, which was a running account, concealed from the notice of the Court. It seems to me that on account of fall in the price of rapeseed, the petitioners/accused were not able to persuade the prospective buyers to take delivery of the goods and such failure on the part of the petitioners/accused appears to have given a cause of grievance to the respondent/complainant. Even if the respondent/ complainant had a cause of grievance on that score, the proper venue for redress of such grievance was a civil Court and not the criminal Court. It appears that the forum of the criminal Court is being utilized by the res pondent/complainant for vindication of his civil rights, for which the proper forum is a civil Court.

4. In these circumstances I have no doubt that the proceedings initi ated by the respondent/complainant against the petitioners/accused in the criminal Court amount to a clear abuse of the process of the criminal Court, and for such reason the proceedings need to be quashed, which are hereby quashed.

5. Application allowed. Petition accepted.