' SH. ABDUL RASHID, J.---The petitioners through this petition seek quashment of case F.I.R. No.355, dated 18-12-2004 under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station City Kamalia District Toba Tek Singh on the report of Naeem Akhtar respondent No.2. According to the prosecution allegations set up in the F.I.R. The petitioners had friendly terms with the complainant on account of which the latter had given a loan of Rs.8,00,000 to them. Subsequently, the petitioner returned Rs.82,000 to the complainant and executed a promissory note for an amount of Rs.7,18,000 in favour of the complainant. Despite the demand of the complainant the petitioners had not made payment of the amount stipulated in the promissory note which led to an altercation between the parties on account of which the matter was reported and the present case has been registered.
2. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that from the contents of the F.I.R. It is borne out that the petitioners had taken loan from the complainant and had made a part payment of the loan and had executed a promissory note for the remaining amount and the complainant's remedy is to file a suit for recovery of the amount on the basis of the promissory note and that there is no material on the file to suggest that the petitioners had in any manner cheated the complainant or had offered any kind of dishonest inducement to him and as a result of that had obtained any pecuniary benefit and that according to the contents of the F.I.R. The complainant had himself, because of his terms with the petitioners, agreed to give loan to the petitioners and the amount so received could not be termed to be the result of dishonest inducement.
3. It is borne out from the contents of the F.I.R. That the complainant had given a loan of Rs.8,00,000 and had received a part payment to the tune of Rs.82,000 and petitioner had executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant for the remaining amount i.e. Rs.7,18,000. Thus the liability between the parties is that of civil nature and there is no material or the facts alleged in the F.I.R. To constitute any of the offences stipulated in the F.I.R. The petitioners did not offer any kind of dishonest inducement to the complainant and secured a pecuniary benefit as a result of that and further it has not been alleged that the petitioners had forged any document, therefore, the facts stipulated in the F.I.R. Do not reveal any information constituting commission of a cognizable offence. Therefore, this F.I.R. Has been registered in violation of law. The remedy of the complainant is to file suit for recovery of the amount stipulated in the promissory note. The present F.I.R. As such is quashed.