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.22-Q of 1984, decided on 11th March, 1984.
---S.561--Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 406/420/468/471--Quashing of proceedings--Prosecution evidence already closed--Documents appended with petition in support of plea of defence could be produced in defence and appreciated by trial Court according to law--Petition for quashing having no merit dismissed in limine.
---S.561--Penal Code (XLV of 1860) 5.406/420/468/471--Stay of proceed ings--Plot in dispute in criminal complaint not subject-matter of civil litigation--Proceedings not stayed.
Abdul Halim v. The State 1982 S C M R 988 ref.
Kh. Muhammad Sharif and Tajammul Hussain for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 11th March, 1984.
A private criminal complaint under section 406/420/468/471, P.P.C. was instituted in the Court of Magistrate Section 30, Ferozewala by M/s. Appollo Enterprises Ltd., against Dr. Farrukh Hussain on the allegation that the complainant had agreed to purchase 29 Kanals and 9 Marlas of land from one Haidayat Ali and for which Rs. 18,500 were paid as part payment in advance. However, the accused got that land transferred in his own personal name through a registered sale-deed for a sum of Rs.57,625. This complaint was filed in February, 1982 by the Appollo Enterprises Ltd., respondent No.1 and is pending trial before Mr. Shaukat Javid Farooqi, Magistrate Section 30, Ferozewala. The Court after recording preliminary evidence summoned the present petitioner as an accused, who filed an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. for his acquittal as no case was made out against him. The said application was dismissed as the learned Magistrate wanted to record some evidence before an order under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. could be passed.
2. The complainant examined three witnesses .in support of the complaint and closed its evidence. Now, as has been informed by the learned counsel the case is fixed for statement of accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. After this evidence a second application under section 249-A was filed before the trial Magistrate but the same was dismissed. Hence this petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at great length. He has drawn my attention to various documents in support of his plea that the case against the petitioner was false. He also drew my attention to various other documents appended with this petition.
4. I think that this is not a fit case of quashment of proceedings because the prosecution evidence has already been closed. The documents appended with this petition and referred to by the learned counsel in support of the plea of defence of the petitioner can be produced in defence. All the evidence will be appreciated by the trial Magistrate according to law. It is not possible for me to appraise the complainant's evidence and the documents, likely to be relied upon in defence at this stage. There is no merit in this petition for quashment which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
5. The learned counsel further submitted that the criminal proceedings be stayed because civil litigation is pending between the parties. He has placed reliance on Abdul Halim v. The State 1982 S C M R 988 in support of his submission. A perusal of this case indicates that the dispute between the parties in criminal complaint was over agricultural land and same land was the subject-matter of civil litigation. This case-law is not applicable to the facts of the present case, because in the alleged agreement between the parties this plot was not the subject-matter of the dispute and was not made part of the agreement. This being the case the proceedings are not stayed in the complaint. The Criminal Miscellaneous 22/Q/84 is accordingly disposed of.
M. Y. H. Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer