Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Miscellaneous No.32/Q of 1973, decided on 17th April, 1983.
---S. 561-A--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 379--Quashing of pro ceedings--Fact whether complainant was in lawful possession of truck in dispute and it was stolen by petitioner yet to be proved at trial--Held, not a case of abuse of process of Court--Quashing of proceedings declined in circumstances.
Sh.Dilawar Hussain for Petitioner.
Ch.Zirad Din Ahmad Qamar for Respondents.
Khalid Alvi for the State.
Date of hearing: 16th April, 1983.
A complaint is pending in the Court of Magistrate 1st Class/ Assistant Commissioner, Kot Addu. The petitioner is alleged to have taken away a Truck which had been purchased by the complainant and for which he had made part payment to the petitioner. The trial Court after recording preliminary evidence has summoned the petitioner to stand a charge under section 379, P:P.C. The complaint itself had levelled allegations under sections 420, 406, P.P.C. but the trial Court decided to summon the petitioner for an offence under section 379, P.P.C only.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the allegations against the petitioner are false as there was no writing in existence that the Truck was sold for Rs.40,000 and that a couple of instalments were already paid to the petitioner. But in my view this is of no consequence as this objection relates only to the quantum of evidence. On the other hand, if the complainant can produce to show that he was in lawful possession of the Truck and that it was stolen by the petitioner, the petitioner will be guilty of an offence under section 379, P.P.C. Whether the charges can be proved or not is of course, a matter of evidence and cannot be prejudged at this stage. It is, therefore, not a case of abuse of process of Court. The petition has no merit. It is dismissed. The record of the case may be returned to the Magistrate 1st Class/Assistant Commissioner, Kot Add for further proceedings in the matter.
S. G. D. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer