Find a Lawyer

Criminal Reference No. 8 of 1971, decided on 13th April1972.

---Ss. 405 & 406--Complaint that accused complainant's step-brother, realized C. P. fund crud gratuity of their deceased father, several years back, and misappropriated same-No property having been entrusted by complainant to accused ingredients of offence of criminal misappropriation not made out---Dispute held, one of civil nature.

----S. 405--Jurisdiction under S. 405--Confined to movable property.

----S. 406 Jurisdiction-Complainant filed in District K. that accused misappropriated share of complainant In landed property left by parties' deceased father in District High Court in District K, held, had no jurisdiction in matter.

A. A. Lakhan for the State.

S. Nabs Raza for Respondent No. 1.

Nemo for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing: 12th April 1972.

This-is a reference by Mr. Rasool Bux Leshari, the leateed Additional Sessions Judge. Karachi, for quashment of, orders passed by A. C. M. No. 30, Karachi:- dated; .1'tb August 1970, whereby he issued process against the petitioner/amused under section 406, P. P. C.

2. The facts are that a complaint under section 406, P. P. C. was filed by Mst. Rehmatunnisa against respondent Aziz Rahman who is her step-brother in the Court of learned Magistrate on 13th August 1970, stating inter alia to her father Ahmadjee Khan an employee of K. M. C. Fire brigade died in 1955 while the complainant was a minor and lie has left six heirs, a widow, two daughters and three sons. It was alleged in the complaint that the' respondent misappropriated the share of complainant an other heirs ref landed property comprising of a garden, agricultural land, house etc. in Tehsil Mansehra, Post Office Khaki, District Hazara and also that he received the entire G. P. Fund and gratuity on behalf of her deceased father without giving any share to the complainant and other heirs. On this application the learned Magistrate ordered issue of process.

3. I have heard counsel for the parties. A bare reading of the complaint goes to show that the allegations in the complaint do not satisfy the ingredients under section 405, P. P. C. simple because no property was entrusted to the respondent by the complainant so that which cold be misappropriated. As regards to the landed property situated in District Hazara in N: W. F. P., the Court at Karachi obviously has no jurisdiction and section 405, P. P. C. is only confined to movable property. Apart from this counsel for the State Mr. Lakhan pointed out that in her statement before the learned Magistrate the complainant stated that her mother has received G. P. Fund but that has been taken by the respondent forcibly therefore, it was urged that the allegation of misappropriation of G. P. Fund does not arise in view of the complainant's above statement. Without going into the question whether papers with regard to G. P. Fund can be treated as valuable property under section 405, P, P. C. it is evident that the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature Red the complainant resorted to use the criminal Courts to settle civil disputes which cannot be permitted.

4. I accept this reference for the reasons given above and quash the proceedings, Reference accepted.

Reference accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.