Cheating and forgery

2018 YLR 323 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 498Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468 & 471Cheating and forgeryPre-arrest bail, confirmation ofAbsence of accusedEffectAccused was arrested during pendency of pre-arrest bail, in some other case and he was not present before the courtPlea raised by complainant was that due to arrest of accused petition had become infructuousValidity

Withholding of concession of pre-arrest bail particularly when absence of accused at time of confirmation of his ad-interim bail was not willful and he was represented through counsel, same would not serve ends of justice

Complainant, during investigation, could not produce evidence to prove his claim of advancing huge amount of Rs. 1,81,00,000/- to accused and despite lapse of three years he did not approach civil court for recovery of the amount

Proposed arrest of accused was motivated by illwill and mala fide of complainant and local police

Pre-arrest bail was confirmed in circumstances.

2016 PCrLJN 47 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 497(5)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468 & 471Cheating and forgeryBail, cancellation ofCivil suit, pendency of

Complainant alleged that accused committed forgery to deprive him from his valuable rights which accrued on the basis of agreement to sell in question

Complainant sought cancellation of bail granted to accused and raised the plea that his civil suit was pending adjudication

Validity

Even if suit instituted by complainant on the basis of alleged agreement to sell was decreed, it would per se not confer any title upon him unless and until a formal sale deed was executed in his favour

Offences under Ss. 420 & 471, P.P.C. were bailable, while offence under S. 471, P.P.C. was non-cognizable and police never sought permission from area Magistrate to carry out investigation

False implication of accused in the case got registered by complainant could not be ruled out

Principles for grant of bail were different from those of cancellation and unless order by which accused were admitted to bail was found to be perverse or shocking or patently illegal, High Court would be slow to interfere with discretion exercised by competent Court of law in granting bail

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2015 MLD 972 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S.22-APenal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419, 420, 467, 468 & 471Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 30 & 33Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionMaintainabilityCheating and forgeryJustice of peaceFIR, registration ofScope

Contention of the petitioner was that respondents by preparing a forged arbitration agreement had committed an offence under Ss. 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471, P.P.C.

Application for registration of FIR was dismissed by the Justice of Peace/Sessions Judge

Validity

Civil dispute between the parties with regard to partition of Shamilat property was on record

Petitioner had turned a civil dispute into criminal proceedings just to continue his possession over a piece of land

If a property dispute in arbitration agreement or award on any ground had been raised then a specific remedy under Ss. 30 & 33 of Arbitration Act, 1940 was available to the petitioner

Dispute with regard to property had been referred to the arbitrators

None of the persons except petitioner after 13 years of execution, initiated proceedings for the registration of FIR against respondents

Averments made by the petitioner had not been supported by other executant of such arbitration agreement/award

Petitioner had an alternate and efficacious remedy to seek grievance before the competent court of law

Constitutional petition was not maintainable which was dismissed, in circumstances.

2015 YLR 2486 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 498 & 155Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468 & 471Cheating and forgeryPre-arrest bail, grant ofNon­cognizable offenceFailure to seek permission to conduct investigation

Accused was an old man of 75 years who had also instituted civil suit against complainant which was pending adjudication before competent Court of law

Validity

Offences under Ss. 420 & 471 P.P.C. were bailable, while offence under S.468, P.P.C. was non-cognizable

­Investigating officer did not seek any permission from area Magistrate to carry out investigation

Accused was 75 years old and it would be unjust to send him behind the bars just to satisfy ego of complainant, particularly when there was no evidence to connect accused with commission of offences under Ss. 420, 468 & 471, P.P.C.

Pre-arrest bail was confirmed in circumstances.

2013 PCrLJ 301 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 249-A & 265-KPenal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 465 & 468Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5Cheating and forgeryPendency of civil proceedingsStay of criminal trialPrinciple

Cognizable offences were committed by accused, for which trial was in progress, when Trial Court stayed proceedings till decision of civil suit and complainants were aggrieved of that order passed by Trial Court

Validity

Although civil liability was independent of criminal liability and no invariable rule existed to the effect that pending decision of civil suit, criminal proceedings must be stayed as it was purely matter of discretion, yet while exercising discretion, guiding principle was to see as to whether accused was likely to be prejudiced if criminal proceedings were not stayed

When it was clear from gist of materials available on record that criminal liability was dependent on outcome of civil litigation regarding matter in issue, then criminal proceedings must be stayed, particularly when dispute was with regard to title of property

Normally criminal proceedings should not be postponed pending decision of civil litigation connected with same subject-matter but where it was clear that criminal liability was dependant on result of civil litigation or was so prima facie connected with it which would give rise to serious danger of grave injustice being done in the case

Complainants had already instituted civil suits alleging fraud in attestation of general power of attorney by their father and matter was sub judice before civil court, therefore, Trial Court had rightly stayed criminal proceedings pending before him till final decision of civil suits instituted by complainants

Such order of Trial Court did not call for any interference by High Court in it revisional jurisdiction

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.