1. This is an application under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. To quash the proceedings pending against the applicant under section 420, P. P. C. In the Court of A. C. M., Hyderabad.
2. Syed Ahmed Rizvi filed a complaint against the applicant and to others under section 420, P. P. C.
3. The allegations in the complaint were that the applicant was an extra film actress and was running distribution of film agency in the name and style of Alnazar Movies at Karachi with the assistance of the other to accused persons. The parties were known to each "' other. It was further alleged by the complainant that on 18th June 1968, the applicant and co-accused sent for him at a hotel and entered into a business with him for the exhibition of film Papi in Nishat Cinema. It was agreed that the complainant would supply the film and it would be exhibited in the cinema house and he would be paid Rs. 4,150 per week. The applicant was also required to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,000 with the complainant within 3 days and it was so deposited. According to the agreement the complainant arranged for an amount of Rs. 3,000 and out of this Rs. 2,000 were deposited with the proprietor Nishat Cinema and the balance of Rs. 1,000, was given to the applicant for publicity purpose and the entire amount was to be refunded to the complainant by the applicant.
4. Subsequent--ly the film was exhibited but it proved a flop and therefore the invested amount could not be recovered. The cinema manage--ment after deducting hire amount returned the film on 23rd July 1968 on the authority of the letter issued by the applicant. However, the applicant refused to pay the amount which she was required to pay to the complainant. Consequently it is said that she and the other co-accused cheated the complainant to the extent of Rs. 8,000.
5. On the basis of these allegations the complaint was filed and the learned Magistrate after holding preliminary inquiry issued process.
6. It was urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that the bare reading of the complaint did not disclose any offence of cheating and, therefore, the issuance of the process was an abuse of the process of the Court. I entirely agree with this contention. There is no allegation in the complaint that there was any dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the applicant anal the co- accused to cheat the complainant. The deception is the main ingredient of the offence and this is lacking in the present case. The film was exhibited and according to the allegation made in the complaint itself it proved a flop. The film was returned to the complainant. The dispute with regard to the amount which was payable by the applicant to the complainant is purely of civil nature and the complainant should seek redress from the civil Court. He cannot be permitted to use the criminal Court for that dispute: In the circumstances I allow the application and quash the proceedings pending against the applicant and the co-accused in the Court of A. C: M., Hyderabad.