Find a Lawyer

Criminal Reference No. 75 of 1975, decided on 17th September 1976.

S. 435/438 read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 420/406 Quashment of proceedings‑Complaint filed under S. 420/406, P. P. C. on ground that complainant advanced disputed sum of money to co‑respondent for which respondent stood surety but respondent realized debt from co‑respondent and misappropriated‑Civil litigation respecting disputed money also pending adjudication between parties-- Facts of case, held, clearly disclose a dispute of cavil nature‑ Proceedings quashed in circumstances.‑Criminal Procedure Code V of 1898), S. 561‑A.‑‑[Quashment of proceedings].

Nooruddin Sarki for the State.

Mazhar Ali Siddiqui for Respondent No. 1.

Respondent No. 2 (absent).

Date of hearing: 17th September 1976.

This is a reference by Addl. Sessions Judge, Shikarpur recommending that proceedings of a criminal case under section 420, P. P. C. started on a direct complaint filed by respondent No. 2 Nabi Bux in the Court of S. D. M., Shikarpur may be quashed.

2. The facts in brief are that complainant Nabi Bux presented a written complaint before S. D. M., Shikarpur on 20‑9‑72 stating therein that 2 years prior to the filing of that complaint respondent No. 1 Mohammad Shah who was his murshed' had introduced one Mehran Khan Bajrani as his disciple for payment of certain advance for which Mohammad Shah stood surety. Mehran Khan was accordingly paid Rs. 7,264 and Mohammed Shah was also paid Re 1,060. When money was demanded from Mehran Khan he stated that he had already paid Re. 5,164 to Mohammad Shah because Mohammad Shah had stood surety for him. Mehran than paid the balance of Rs. 2.100; for the remaining amount already paid he referred them to Mohammed Shah. That the complainant had already filed a suit against Mohammed Shah for Re. 1,000, which had been decreed. He had received payment of some amount towards that decree and Re 357 was in balance, which still remained unpaid. It is case of the complainant that he demanded that amount recovered from Mehran Khan by Mohammed Shah. He also demanded the balance of the decretal amount but Mohammed Shah refused to pay him anything and threatened that he would beat him. Nabi Bux accordingly filed this com plaint under sections 41, 506, P. P. C. The learned S. D. M., Shikarpur issued process for offence under section 420, P. P. C. only.

3. It has been argued by Mr. Mazhar Ali Siddiqui on behalf of respon dent Mohammed Shah that no criminal offence under section 420, P. P. C. is made out on the face of the complainant and the dispute is entirely of civil nature. It is true that there is no allegation of any false representation on the part of the accused/respondent Mohammed Shah. The complainant really discloses the fact that a Zamindar was introduced by Mohammed Shah for payment of certain advance and some advance was taken by Mohammed Shah himself. That Zamindar Mehran Khan afterwards paid some amount back for the balance he referred respondent Nabi Bux to Mohammed Shah. That Nabi Bux had also filed some civil suit for the advance against Moham med Shah. These facts clearly reveal that the dispute, if any, could be of civil nature and the facts do not disclose any criminal offence. Allowing this complaint case to continue on the file of the Magistrate will amount to abuse of the process of Court.

4. The reference is accordingly accepted and the proceedings are hereby 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.