' This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No, 229-Q and 878-M, both of 1982.
2. In these applications the petitioners have prayed that the criminal proceedings against them in the Court of a Magistrate at Lahore should be quashed. One of the petitioners is a Deputy Superintendent of Police while the other is a retired Major.
3. The criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioners by Muhammad Yousaf who filed a complaint on 9th November, 1980 under section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code before the Ilaqa Magistrate. He alleged in the complaint that the petitioners had represented to him that they had opened a recruiting agency by the name of "Al-fawad Agency" for recruiting labour for Middle East countries. On the said representation he contacted his friends. Fifteen of them agreed to ;avail of the services offered by the petitioners and a sum of Rs, 1,80,000 at the rate of Rs, 12,000 per person was paid to them. Later the petitioners failed to abide by their offer and he learnt that they were never in a position to send any labour abroad and that they had received the said money on false representations.
4. On the receipt of the complaint the Ilaqa Magistrate recorded the statements of the complainant and two other witnesses. On the basis of their depositions he was satisfied that prima facie a case under section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code had been made out against the petitioners. Accordingly he issued summonses to them. The petitioners moved this Court for the quash ment of the proceedings through criminal miscellaneous application No, 2/Q of 1981. Their application was rejected on the ground that they ought to have first moved the trial Magistrate under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners then made an application under the said provision before the trial Magistrate but he rejected it with the following observations :- "After going through the record and arguments advanced by the respective sides, I am of the considered opinion that until the whole evidence is (yet to be) recorded, it is premature to say that the charge is groundless, hence, the petition at hand is dismissed."
' The petitioners have now again come to this Court.
5. In support of this application the learned counsel for the petitioners states that on 16th June, 1979 Muhammad Yousaf had lodged an F. I. R. At Police Station Old Anarkali wherein he had made similar allegations against one Abdul Ghaffar. On the basis of that complaint Abdul Ghaffar was being prosecuted for offences under sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code and his case was pending before the same Magistrate who was seized of this complaint. The learned counsel has further pointed out that in that F. I. R. Muhammad Yousaf had not made any allegations that the money was received by the two petitioners. It was thus a case where Muhammad Yousaf had come out with two versions which were entirely different. Further, Muhammad Yousaf had sold the land of Abdul Ghaffar as well as the sister of one of the petitioners in pursuance of forged powers- of-attorney. He was prosecuted in respect of both the transactions and the present complaint was filed by him by way of a counterblast.
6. The learned counsel appearing for Muhammad Yousaf has stated in reply that the receipt of money by Abdul Ghaffar was entirely a different transaction from the one which has led to the prosecution of the petitioners. He has also stated that in criminal cases relating to the sales of land belonging to Abdul Ghaffar and the sister of one of the petitioners he was acquitted by the trial Court. In support of his assertion he has placed before me copies of the orders relating to his acquittal in the two cases.
7. As mentioned above the case of Muhammad Yousaf is that the transaction which he had with Abdul Ghaffar was entirely different and separate from the one he had mentioned in the complaint. Although is unusual that Muhammad Yousaf should have been twice stung in similar circumstances, particularly where fairly large amounts were involved, yet his story is not implausible. I am, therefore, inclined to agree with the learned trial Magistrate that unless at least some evidence is recorded it cannot be said that the complaint filed by Muhammad Yousaf is baseless. In the circumstances I am reluctant to stifle the proceedings at a very preliminary stage.
The prayer for quashment is accordingly rejected.
Petition rejected,