Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 375/Q of 1975, decided on 4th July 1975.

-----S. 561‑A‑Quashment of proceedings‑Complainant and prosecu tion witnesses unable to identify accused‑petitioners in Court‑Com plainant on his own showing doing business with accused from before and claiming payment of sale money for his sold buffalo‑ Dispute, held, one of civil liability‑Proceedings quashed, in circum stances.‑[Quashment of proceedings].

Raja Muhammad Sabir for Petitioners.

Arif Iqbal Hussain for Respondent No. 1.

Maqbool Hussain Shah for the State.

This is an application by Muhammad Sadiq and 9 others under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C., for quashment of proceedings pending against the petitioners in the Court of Mr. Javid Dastgir Mirza, Magistrate Ist Class, Lahore under section 420, P. P. C.

2. The facts, briefly, are that Muhammad Ali, respondent No. 1 has filed a private complaint against the ten petitioners wherein he has stated that he (i.e. Muhammad Ali Respondent.) deals in salt and purchase of buffaloes, in Nawankot, Lahore that a month prior to the filing of the complaint the ten petitioners who used to do business with him and used to purchase buffaloes from him, came to his business premises ; that they chose a milch buffalo for their personal use and purchased it for Rs. 3,000 ; they promised to pay the price within one month ; that after a month, all the ten persons again came to him at Lahore and when he demanded the price of the buffalo they made excuses and promised to pay the money after 2 or 3 days ; that on the 10th March, 1975 all the ten accused persons again came to him at his place of business ; that the complainant again demanded his money but they I. e. the accused/petitioners) flatly refused to pay ; that they also threatened him by saying that they would abduct and take him to the tribal area; that they also gave him a beating with kicks and fists and that he was rescued by Laeeq Ahmad and Muhammad Saleem. The respondent/complainant has also explained that he had gone to the police station to report the matter but the police did not register a case against the accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complainant i. e. Muhammad Ali respondent) does not even know the petitioners and has filed this false complaint against them at the instigation or one Naseer Ahmad, a police constable, who belongs to petitioner's villages in Tehsil Gujarkhan, District Rawalpindi with whose brother and father the petitioners have bitter enmity. He submitted that neither the petitioners deal in sale and purchase of buffaloes nor had they gone to him in Lahore and purchased a buffalo from him. He contended further that Muhammad Ali, respondent bad been hired by the aforementioned police constable to file a complaint against them at Lahore so as to caress and humiliate them. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Muhammad Ali, respondent, was not able to identify any of the petitioners because he had, in fact, never seen them. He also contended that the allegations, made in the complaint only constituted a civil liability and do not disclose a criminal offence. He submitted further that the complainant bad not appeared in this Court on one or two dates in spite of having been summoned because he wanted some time during which Naseer Ahmad police constable may be able to show him some of the petitioners in the premises or the verandah of the Court. The learned counsel submitted that some of the petitioners were attending this Court so as to be able to demonstrate that Muhammad Ali respondent does not recognise them.

4. I noticed that during the hearing, Muhammad Ali respondent was ex tremely fidgety and constantly looked restlessly towards the door and towards the people sitting in the Court Room as if he was trying to spot some one. When asked if he could identify any of the accused/petitioners, he explained he only knew Muhammad Sadiq, petitioner No. 1 and did not know any one of the other petitioners (and could not, therefore, identify them . He, however, correctly identified Muhammad Sadiq petitioner No. 1 who is rather prominent due to his beard. He also admitted that Laeeq Ahmad and Muhammad Saleem mentioned in paragraph 7 of the complaint as the persons who came and rescued him also do not know the accused /petitioners. In other words they, too, would not be able to identify the accused. These facts coupled with nature of the complainant story given in the complaint do lend support to the contention that the complaint is false and has been lodged by Muhammad Ali, respondent at the instance of some one.

5. I now take up the contention that allegations in the complaint only make out a civil liability.

It is admitted by Muhammad Ali, complainant (respondent) that the petitioners had' business relations with him and used to come to him for purchasing buffaloes. In fact, Muhammad Ali admitted before me that even before the incident the petitioners hat come to him a number of times and taken away buffaloes on credit, in too cause of business. As such, I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that once it is admitted by Muhammad Ali complainant/respondent that the buffaloe in question was purchased from him by the petitioners (who had business relations with him), on payment of price or on credit, the only liability against them would be to pay the price thereof. This is merely a civil liability. In the circumstance of dais case it cannot be said that the non payment of the price of the buffalo constitutes a criminal offence.

In this view of the matter I feel that the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of process of the Court. The said proceedings are, therefore, quashed.

Proceedings quashed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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