' M.A. SHAHID SIDDIQUI, J.--Hameed Ali Sheikh, petitioner through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Has prayed for quashing the proceeding pending against him in the Court of a learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class at Faisalabad under section 420, P.P.C. In case F.I.R. No,3 of 2005, dated 5-1-2005 registered at Police Station Rail Bazar, Faisalabad.
2. The F.I.R. Is based on the written complaint of Muhammad Sheraz Akhtar Ghouri, complainant/respondent N.2 who is businessman of Sotar Mandi, Faisalabad. Admittedly he had business dealing with Hameed Ali Sheikh, petitioner. Briefly stated the allegation against the petitioner is that he sold cotton yarn worth Rs,7,61,750 which was entrusted to him by the complainant for the purpose of sale. The complainant's case is that the petitioner after having sold yarn avoided to make payment to him.
3. During investigation of the case the police came to the conclusion that the offence under section 406, P.P.C. Was not made out against the petitioner. Accordingly it was deleted while sending the case to the Court for trial for an offence under section 420, P.P.C. The petitioner made an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Seeking his acquittal on the sole ground that the facts of the case do not disclose the commission of a criminal case as such the trial would amount to an abuse of process of law. The learned trial Court dismissed the application vide order, dated 10-3- 2006 which a learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to maintain while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner vide impugned order, dated 18-7-2006. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the facts stated in the F.I.R. Do not contain any element of cheating on the part of the petitioner before the delivery of cotton yarn by the complainant to the petitioner and that there is no likelihood of the petitioner being convicted of any offence as such the proceedings pending before the trial Court against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law. Learned counsel for the complainant/ respondent No,2 vehemently argued that this Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction cannot resolve factual controversies as such this petition merits dismissal.
5. During the course of arguments Hameed Ali Sheikh, petitioner who is present in Court admitted that he had been supplied cotton yarn worth Rs,7,61,750 but as the same was not of good quality he had to incur a huge loss after its weaving. He set up a counter claim of more than Rs,4,00,000 against the complainant/ respondent No,2.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A plain reading of the F.I.R. Shows that there is no allegation of cheating or dishonest inducement on the part of the petitioner before the delivery of cotton yarn by the complainant/respondent No,2. The subsequent refusal of the petitioner to make payment of the yarn to respondent No,2 would not give rise to a criminal action. It was a simple transaction of civil nature. The petitioner had failed to perform his part of the agreement for which respondent No,2 could easily bring a civil action against him.
7. In view of the above, I have found myself in complete agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no likelihood of the petitioner being convicted of any offence. I, therefore, accept this petition and quash the proceedings pending before the learned trial Court. This order, however, shall not operate as a bar to the civil action.