Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, J.--The petitioner (complainant) seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 13.4.2004, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench; in Writ Petition No, 841 of 2004.
2. On the complaint of the petitioner, a criminal case F.I.R. No, 36 dated 5.3.2004 under Section 489- F PPC was registered against the Respondent No, 1 at Police Station Kohsar, District Islamabad. The petitioner stated therein that the Respondent No, 1 had issued a cheque for one million U.S Dollars which was dishonoured upon its presentation. The Respondent No, 1 filed a Writ Petition No, 841 of 2004 before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench for quashment of the F.I.R. A learned Single Judge in Chambers of the High Court, by the impugned judgment dated 13.4.2004, allowed the writ petition of the petitioner and quashed the afore-mentioned F.I.R. No,
36. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had sold out his membership of the Islamabad Stock Exchange to the Respondent No, 1 for a consideration of Rs, 11,000,000/- who issued. two cheques dated 11.2.2004 and 14.2.2004 for Rs, 10,00,000/- and Rs, 5,00,000/-respectively in addition to the token Money. The petitioner got both the cheques encashed. However, the petitioner withdrew his nomination application dated 12.2.2004 on 27.2.2004. It was submitted that the Respondent No, 1 was a Director of a leading money exchange firm in the name and style of Khanani and Kalia. Therefore, the petitioner and the Respondent No, 1 entered into another independent transaction of one million U.S. Dollars on 11.2.2004. The petitioner paid cash of Pak Rs, 5,73,00,000/- equivalent to one million ffS Dollars to the Respondent No, 1 who in turn issued a Cheque No, FSA 62780 dated 11.2.2004 for one million U.S. Dollars from his foreign currency account.
The cheque was deposited in the petitioner's account in Muslim Commercial Bank on 12.2.2004 but the same was dishonoured and returned to the petitioner on 18.2.2004 with the remarks "Refer to the drawer". In these circumstances, the petitioner had got the aforesaid F.I.R. registered against the Respondent No, 1 which was unjustifiably quashed by the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 13.4.2004.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent No, 1 argued that a bargain between the petitioner and Respondent No, 1 for purchase of membership of Islamabad Stock Exchange was struck for a consideration of Rs, 8.5 million. The Respondent No, 1 issued a Cheque No, FSA 62780 on 11.2.2004 for one million from the cheque book of his foreign currency account by inadvertent mistake which was rectified immediately. In lieu thereof a cheque for rupees one million was issued on the same day by Respondent No, 1 in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs, 5,00,000/-. The petitioner got both the cheques encashed. In addition, the Respondent No, 1 paid a sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- to the petitioner in cash. The Union Bank was informed accordingly. There was no, other independent transaction between the parties other than the sale of membership of the Islamabad Stock Exchange by the petitioner for which the cheques were issued and encashed. The Respondent No, 1 had already been declared innocent by the police.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the available record. The High Court found from the record that there was a nomination form issued by the petitioner in favour of the Respondent No, 1 alongwith a notice informing the transfer of his membership of Islamabad Stock Exchange in favour of the Respondent No,
1. The counsel for the Respondent No, 1 also issued a notice explaining the circumstances in which Cheque No, FSA 62780 was issued. As a result of investigation carried out by the police, the respondent had been found, prima facie, innocent. The High Court also observed that the words one million on the disputed cheque were not pre-fixed or suffixed by the words U.S. Dollars. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the view taken by the High Court is unexceptionable. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court. Even otherwise this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.