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.
Civil Petition No.101 of 1983, decided on 24th October, 1983.
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 9‑2‑1983, passed in Cr. M. No. 229/Q/1982).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.420‑‑Case on similar allega tions already registered against petitioner and pending trial in Court No base found to filing of private complaint against petitioner in circum stances pointed out by respondent disclosing prima facie case Rejection of petitioner's quashment application by High Court‑‑Held, justified‑ Leave to appeal refused‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.561‑A.
Ch. Muhammad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh.Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Majid Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate- on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 24th October, 1983.
This petition by Ikramullah and Ayaz Ahmad is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 9‑2‑1983, dismissing their application for quashment of criminal proceedings under section 420, P.P.C. initiated on a private complaint filed against them by Muhammad Yousaf on 9‑11‑1980 ‑and pending in the Court of a Magistrate at Lahore.
2. The allegations against them, briefly, are that they had opened an Employment Agency and were in a position to secure jobs for labour in the Middle East and send them abroad on payment of Rs.12,000 each and thus they extorted a sum of Rs.1,80,000 for securing employment for 15 persons, but the accused /petitioners, could not do the needful.
3. Petitioners' counsel submitted that earlier on 16‑6‑1979, Yousaf complainant had lodged an F.I.R. against Ikramullah and one Abdul Ghafar, making similar allegations and a case was, therefore, registered which is still pending trial in the Court. Therefore, the private complaint against the petitioners on the same allegations is not competent, specially against Ayaz Ahmad whose name was not mentioned by the complainant in the F.I.R.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the case against the peti tioners, on these facts, is not likely to result in their conviction.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, pointed out that the F.I.R. was only against Ghafar, a relative of Ikramullah peti tioner, whom he had been paying money separately for getting certain people employed in the Middle East. He did not lodge the F. I. R. against the present petitioners earlier because considering them to be persons of some position, (Ikramullah being a retired Major of the Pakistan Army, and Ayaz Ahmad being a D.S.P. in the F.I.A.), he thought that he could get the money returned through persuasion and negotiations.
5. We have gone through the impugned order in the light of the above‑mentioned facts and feel that in the circumstances pointed out by the respondent's counsel there is no bar to filing of the private complaint against the petitioners, the learned Judge in Chamber was justified in the rejecting the petitioners' quashment application as the private complaint disclosed a prima facie case against them. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as being without merit.
S. Q. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer