' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.---The petitioner has sought bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.255 of 2005 dated 13-7-2005 under section 489-F, P.P.C. registered with Police Station, Cantt. Multan on the complaint of Ch. Khalid Sohail.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-accused had been dealing business with the complainant on the basis of agreement dated 12-4-2004, according to which the complainant agreed to provide/supply standard goods, which were to be sold in market and in case of any substandard goods the supply would be returned and price would be refunded.
The complainant started supplying substandard goods, which were returned to him. The petitioner used to issue post dated cheques and after depositing payment, the cheques were to be returned to the petitioner. The petitioner deposited huge amount in lieu of goods received from the complainant. It was only when substandard goods were supplied by the complainant, the petitioner requested the complainant to receive back those goods and on the return of the said goods, deducted the amount of the said goods from the account of the petitioner. He further requested to maintain the standard and quality of the products so that business relations could remain congenial. This genuine request was not acceded to by the complainant rather the petitioner was humiliated and pressurized to make payment of all the substandard goods which was against the spirit of agreement. Further contends that cheque No.37227059 dated 20-5-2005, subject-matter of the instant F.I.R. And cheque No.37227060 dated 25-6-2005 and the post-dated cheques were given by the petitioner to the complainant in due course of business. The complainant refused to accede to the request of the petitioner and demanded payment for the substandard goods supplied by him in violation of the contract entered in between the petitioner and the complainant. The complainant was in possession of the postdated cheques, to be used to receive payment by coercing the petitioner, to use those cheques as liver against him. It is further contended that the petitioner in the circumstances, was forced to file suit for declaration, cancellation, permanent injunction, specific performance of agreement dated 12-4-2004 and rendition of accounts against the complainant, wherein apart from other cheques given by the petitioner to the complainant were impugned, Cheque No.37227059 dated 20-5-2005 was also subject-matter of the suit and the learned Civil Judge, Multan vide his order dated 9-5-2005 passed an injunctive order, wherein operation of cheque No.37227059 dated 20-5-2005, subject- matter of the instant F.I.R. And cheque No.37227060 dated 25-6-2005 was suspended, and the complainant was directed not to encash the same till further orders. The injunction was served upon the police, concerned Bank, who were parties to the suit as well as the complainant. Despite the stay order granted by the Civil Judge, the complainant/respondent deliberately presented the cheque for encashment, which was rightly refused by the Bank as the Bank Manager was restrained by the Civil Court from encashing the said cheque. Since there is a genuine dispute between the petitioner and the complainant regarding the accounts, which matter is sub judice before the Civil Court, the complainant with mala fide intention got registered the F.I.R. And recording of the F.I.R. By the duty officer Police Station, Cantt. Multan, despite stay granted by the Civil Court reflects glaring mala fide of the complainant as well as the police.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant argues that a cheque dated 20-5-2004 of value of Rs.40780 was given by the petitioner which was dishonoured and the case F.I.R. No.357 of 2004 was registered with Police Station Cantt. Multan. In that case the petitioner filed an application for bail before arrest and during hearing of that bail petition, the petitioner made payment of Rs.40780 and the case was dropped against him. He further argues that now presently cheque dated 20-5-2005 of the value of Rs.1,46,000 was given by the petitioner towards the payment of amount outstanding against him for the goods supply to him by the complainant.
Further argues that civil suit was filed by the petitioner on 9-5-2005 wherein suspension of cheque dated 2L-5-2005 was sought Learned Civil Judge without considering this fact issued stay order restraining the complainant and Bank authorities from encashing the said cheque. He further submits that once a cheque has been presented even in violation of the stay order issued by the Civil Court, the same was dishonoured and dishonouring of the cheque constitutes a criminal liability against the petitioner and case under section 480-F, P.P.C. Was rightly registered by the police. It is further argued that civil as well as criminal proceedings can be tried together and no illegality has been committed by the police for registration of case under section 489-F, P.P.C.
Further argues that the petitioner had not joined the investigation. Relying on Aamir Shehzad v. The State and another PLD 2005 Lahore 568, argues that no injunction can be granted by the Civil Cpurt against criminal investigation or any criminal case.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State also opposed the bail application. He, however, states that the petitioner has joined the investigation in late hours on 26-9-2005.
5. From the perusal of record and after hearing learned counsel fcr the parties, it appears that as per working relationship of the petitioner and complainant, the petitioner u',cd to post-dated cheques to the complainant and after selling of goods in the market and effecting recoveries from the market had been making payment to the complainant and who in lieu thereof used to return the post-dated cheques received by him as a security in lieu of the goods given by him to the petitioner, who was working as his distributor in the city of Multan. Admittedly some dispute regarding supply of substandard goods took place between the petitioner and the complainant and the petitioner demanded refund of the substandard goods supplied by the complainant and on this occasion dispute A arose between the parties and payment was stopped by the petitioner.
As it has been argued by learned counsel for the complainant that a cheque value of Rs.40780 dated 20-4-2004 was dishonoured and F.I.R. No.357 of 2004 was registered with Police Station Cantt. Multan and wherein the petitioner, who was on bail, during proceedings made payment of Rs.40780 as a result of compromise between the parties and the same was dropped. The petitioner apprehending some action from the complainant vis-a-vis Cheque No.37227059 dated 20-5-2005 and Cheque No.37227060 dated 25-6-2005 filed civil suit seeking declaration, cancellation of cheque, permanent injunction, specific performance of agreement dated 12-4-2004 and rendition of accounts. He also filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Praying therein that operation of Cheque No.37227059 dated 20-5-2005 and Cheque No.37227060 dated 25-6-2005 may be suspended in the meanwhile. On this application the learned Civil Judge vide his order dated 9-5-2005 suspended the operation of the above mentioned two cheques and directed the complainant/ respondent not to encash the same till further orders. Despite this order the cheques were presented by the complainant/respondent and the same were returned by the Bank constituting an offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. As a result of which F.I.R. Was registered. The arguments that the suit for cancellation rendition of accounts etc. Was filed on 9-5-2005 seeking suspension of cheques dated 20-5-2005 and 25-6-2005 is not maintainable, as those cheques were not in existence on 9-5-2005. As discussed above, this contention has no force, these two postdated cheques were issued by the petitioner as security for goods supplied to him. Since a dispute arose between the parties and the petitioner apprehending the similar action from the complainant which he took against him regarding cheque dated 20-4-2004 of the value of Rs.40,780 filed the instant suit and also prayed for suspension of the two cheques till the decision of the suit. The authority cited by the complainant reported as Aamir Shehzad v. The State and another PLD 2005 Lahore 568 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
In the case of cited authority, the suit for injunction was filed after the cheque was dishonoured and it was rightly observed by the learned Judge that offence if any, had already been committed before passing of injunctive order thus the same cannot be stopped by the Civil Court. In the instant case the injunctive order was passed on 9-5-2005 suspending the operation of the post- dated cheques dated 20-5-2005 and 25-6-2005, whereas cheque dated 20-5-2005 was presented by the complainant despite the order dated 9-5-2005, which was dishonoured by the Bank and the instant F.I.R. Was registered. It is yet to be seen whether the cheques were issued with criminal intention to deceive the complainant.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 9-9-2005 is hereby confirmed, subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. Bail petition is disposed of.