This is a petition under section 561-A, Cr. P.C. By Mirza Zia-ud-Din petitioner for the quashment of criminal proceedings pending against him and others under section 420/406/379/109, P.P.C. Before Ilaqa Magistrate Police Station, Old Kotwali, Multan.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 4th August 1978, F. S. Alexander; respondent No. 1, lodged a report under section 420/406/379/ 109, P.P.C. At Police Station, Old Kotwali, Multan, against one Mirza Salah-ud-Din, Mst. Siddiqa and Faiz Bakhsh alleging that the said three persons had cheated him out of a sum of Rs. 1,30,000 by inducing him to purchase some lands jointly with Mst. Siddiqa, which eventually were never purchased. Mirza Zia-ud-Din, Advocate, the petitioner in the present case, was not named in the F. I. R. But being the younger brother of Mirza Salah-ud-Din who was so named, the Police also introduced his name as one of the co-accused in the challan, which they finally submitted in Court on 5th February 1979. Being aggrieved by the action of the Police in submitting the challan against him, the petitioner filed a petition for quashment, which is now before me for disposal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the real dispute between relevant persons was the dispute between respondent No. 1, on the one hand, and Mirza Salah-ud-Din, Mst.
Siddiqa and Faiz Bakhsh; on the other, in respect of certain moneys which Mirza Salah-ud-Din and his companions had fleeced out of respondent No. 1 by dishonestly pretending to admit him into some transaction relating to, the purchase of land, which in actual fact was never contended and that the present petitioner had only been forcibly introduced into the challan case on the pressure of respondent No. 1, as he happened to be the younger brother of Mirza Salah-ud-Din. It was further admitted that on 30th July 1977, the petitioner had taken on loan Rs. 10,000 from respondent No. 1, vide receipt Annexure 'A' executed by the petitioner in the Respondent No. 1's favour, but since the petitioner had not been able to fully pay the said amount, respondent No. 1 had induced the police to also rope him in the challan case. In connection with the money borrowed by the petitioner from respondent No. 1, it was asserted that on 27th May 1978 the petitioner executed a power of attorney authorising respondent No. 1 to sell his chamber No. 231 in the District Courts premi--ses at Multan for the purposes of recovery of the loan which chamber was sold by respondent No. 1., who received Rs. 4,000 from the transferee in partial satisfaction of his loan. It was further submitted that up til date Rs. 5,300 had been paid by the petitioner, but due to the criminal case having been lodged by respondent No. 1 against him, his practice had been destroyed and he could not clear the balance amount due. In these circumstances, it was submitted that in the first instance the petitioner was no party to the misdeeds of Mirza Salah-ud-Din and his companions, in respect of which respondent No. 1 had filed the F. I. R. Against them at Police Station, Old Kotwali, Multan, on 4th August 1978. As regards his inclusion in the challan; assuming the same was in respect of the misdeeds of his elder brother etc., it was a case of no offence against the petitioner. In the alternative, assuming his inclusion in the challan was due to the matter arising out of the non- payment of the loan received by him on 30th July 1977, the matter was one of a civil nature and the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the challan was not only illegal but a misjoinder of causes of action. In these circumstances, it was prayed that the criminal proceedings pending before the Ilaqa Magistrate, Police Station, Old Kotwali, Multan, qua the petitioner deserved to be quashed.
4. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1, who strongly opposed the petition, submitted that in receipt dated 30th July 1977, Annexure `A' to the petition which the petitioner had executed in favour of his client when he received the loan, mentioned that respondent No. 1 could sell his House No. 428/C in Gulgasht Colony, Multan, should the petitioner be unable to pay the loan by the end of 1977. It was submitted that the said representation was untrue and dishonestly made as his wife was the actual owner of the house and since the loan was secured on the basis of the said dishonest representation, the petitioner was guilty of cheating and, therefore, the petition deserved to he dismissed.
5. During arguments, it was admitted by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that the petitioner was in no way connected with the fraud and cheating which Mirza Salah-ud-Din, Mst. Siddiqa and Faiz Bakhsh practised on his client resulting in a loss of Rs. 1,50,000 to him. It, therefore, appeared that the petitioner was in no way connected with the offences imputed to Mirza Salah-ud-Din and his companions, but that the petitioner had somehow been introduced in the challan at the instance of Superintendent of Police, Multan. Realising this position, both the learned counsel then took time to bring about a compromise between the parties. Today, both the learned counsel reported that the parties had compromised the matter and that the petitioner, who owed Rs. 4,700 to respondent No. 1, had agreed to pay Rs. 1,000 to him in Court and the balance amount in instalments of Rs. 200 per mensem and had also agreed to withdraw all civil and criminal claims, if any, against respondent No. 1, in consideration of respondent No. 1 agreeing not to object to the quashment of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Accordingly, the statements of Mirza Zia-ud-Din petitioner and F. S. Alexander, respondent No. 1, were duly recorded. Respondent No. 1, received before me Rs. 1,000 from the petitioner. He has also in his statement submitted that he has no objection if the petition for quashment) filed by the petitioner is accepted qua the petitioner, subject, however, toy -the criminal case being allowed to proceed against the other accused. The dispute regarding the loan borrowed by the petitioner from respon--dent No. 1, is basically one of a civil nature. As also admitted by learned counsel for respondent No. 1, the petitioner is not connected with the main case registered by him against Mirza Salah-ud-Din and others, which is pending in the criminal Court. The two causes of action appear to be totally different and it is not understood how the petitioner's name has been included in the challan. He is in no way jointly connected with the other persons in trying to cheat respondent No. 1 in the business relating to immovable property.
6. In view of the above, this petition is accepted. The criminal proceedings under section 420/406/379/109, P. P. C., pending in the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate, Police Station Old Kotwali, Multan, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner. However, the criminal case will proceed before the said Magistrate against the other accused.
Proceedings quashed