1. This is an application for quashment of complaint under section 420/406, P. P. C. In the- complaint the complainant Baqadar Shah had alleged that Muhammad Hayat applicant had told him that he had purchased land bearing certain survey numbers and measuring 71.38 acres from Khalid Hussain and others and he had also shown the sale agreement by Khalid Hussain and others in favour of Muhammad Hayat and had handed over the photostat copies to the complainant. The complainant alleged that on such assurance and confidence, he purchased the said land from Muhammad Hayat at Rs. 500 per acre and paid him Rs. 25,500 and the balance of Rs. 10,475 was to be paid at the time of sale-deed. Thereafter, the complainant paid visits from time to time for completion of sale but the accused avoided on false pretexts. On enquiry it was revealed that the original owner had not sold the said land to Muhammad Hayat and Muhammad Hayat had deceived and defrauded Syed Baqadar Shah. The First Class Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant under section 200, Cr. P. C. And also the statement of his witnesses and issued process under section 420/406, P. P. C. On 12-6-1979. The applicant has challenged the issue of the said process and he states that it is for the enforcement of the civil liability that this com--plaint had been filed. The applicant has further alleged that the com--plainant had borrowed the sum of Rs. 15,000 from him o n 17-4-1978 and executed the promissory note and had further taken a loan of Rs. 5,000 on 2-5-1978 and executed a promissory note. And this com--plaint is the result of the demand of those sums of Rs. 15,000 and 5,000. The petitioner also challenged that he had executed the docu--ments in favour of Baqadar Shah and they are forgery. On the other hand Baqadar Shah says that the alleged promissory notes in favour of Muhammad Hayat are a forgery.
2. I have heard Mr. Azizur Rehman on 15-12-1979 but he has absented himself today viz. 16-12-1979. I have also heard Mr. Saeed Haasan, and Mr. Madad Ali Shah for respondent Baqadar Shah. Mr. Saeed Hassan had supported the quashment application. While Mr. Madad Ali Shah has naturally opposed it. The allegations in the complaint are such that if they are found to be correct then it would not" be a mere matter of civil liability and it would be a fit matter for consideration of the criminal Court. If Muhammad Hayat had not purchased the land from Khalid~ Hussain then he could not make a representation to Baqadar Shah that he had purchased the same. In any case, it would depend upon the evidence to be led by the parties to ascertain whether there is any actual fraud or not. Since, both the parties are alleging fraud against each other it is a fit matter to be resolved by the criminal Courts.
3. I have not been able to see as to how it is a question of only civil liability, once the execution of the agreement is not admitted. In these circumstances, I do not find any justification to quash these proceedings. It would, however, be open to the applicant to move the trial Court under section 249- A, Cr. P. C. If after recording of some evidence the applicant can show to the trial Court that no case is made out against him.
4. Consequently, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 704/1979 is dismissed.
5. Quashment declined.