2011 PLP 1655 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD ATIF — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2011 PLP 1655 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Tufail H. Ebrahim, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ATIF — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 1655 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP 1655 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Tufail H. Ebrahim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP 1655 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ATIF — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 498 & 498-A
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.498-F
Counsel of accused had alleged that cheques in question had not been issued by accused, but same were issued on behalf of the company which company was the tenant of father of the complainant; and in terms of the tenancy agreement advance post-dated cheques were issued
Counsel of accused further stated that cheques were not dishonoured on account of any dishonesty which could be verified from the concerned bank
Sufficient funds were available in the account of the company at the relevant time
Matter was a civil dispute between the parties as a case had been filed by the company against the father of the complainant for recovery of amount and damages and compensation
Counsel of accused had apprehension and fear that accused would be arrested by the Police and humiliated
Interim pre-arrest bail, was granted to accused, in circumstances. Jam Asif Mehmood and Muhammad Wasif Riaz for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
TUFAIL H. EBRHAIM, J.
Granted. Granted for the time being subject to all just exceptions. Per learned counsel the alleged cheques have not been issued by the applicant/accused, but the same were issued on behalf of the Quice Food Industries Limited. Per learned counsel the said company was the tenant of father of the complainant and in terms of the tenancy agreement advance post dated cheques were issued. Per learned counsel the company had paid the outstanding K.E.S.C. bills on behalf of the landlord and also made major repairs and renovation of the demised rented premises on behalf of the landlord (father of the complainant). Per learned counsel the future monthly rent was to be adjusted towards such expenses and the cheques were to be returned. Per learned counsel the F.I.R. has been lodged with mala fide and ulterior reasons as when the company requested the father of the complainant to settle the accounts and prior to which date the company had already requested its bankers to stop payment in view of the dispute between the parties. Per learned counsel the cheques were not dishonoured due to any dishonesty and it can be verified from the concerned bank that sufficient funds were available in the account of the company. Per learned counsel there is civil dispute between the parties and a case has been filed by the company against the father of the complainant for recovery of amount and damages and compensation. Per learned counsel there is apprehension and fear that the applicant/accused will be arrested by the police and he will be humiliated in the society. Without going into the merits of the case interim pre-arrest bail is granted to applicant in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. Issue notice to the Prosecutor General to come up on 5-10-2010 for confirmation or otherwise. The applicant/accused is directed to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating officer. H.B.T./M-2/K Bail granted.