The complainant, based on sections 406 and 420 of criminal confidence violation, fraud and dishonesty, filed an FIR that he bought and paid the flat from the accused, but said that the flat was to the third party The defendant against the high value believes that the dispute between the parties was purely natural in nature because the complainant had bought a flat from him and paid some part but did not confirm the counsel of the complainant's lawyer, And said that there was a dispute between the parties. Citizen complainant further admitted that he had refunded the amount paid to the accused for booking the flat, the appellate court acquitted the accused under section 420, PPC, but P. The PC was convicted under section 406, which, in the course of the observations shown incorrectly interpreting section 406, the amount of PPC paid by the complainant was against the purchase of the flat under certain terms and conditions of the contract. Se / Booking; and violation of any terms and conditions of the agreement will create a civil dispute, not a criminal case even if the city is considered. Priority will be given to civil court if criminal charges are attracted to the nature of the components of the case. The unanimous decision that resulted from a misinterpretation of the law to decide a dispute between the parties in respect of disputed facts was bound to separate the sentence and sentence awarded by the trial court to the accused, and the appellate court Had retained it and was acquitted of the charge under section 406, PPC
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
