1. This is an application under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. to quash the proceedings pending against the applicant under section 408, P. P. C.
2. The applicants and Haroon Rashid became partners and obtained Royalty contract from the Deputy Commissioner, Karachi. Each of the parties had equal shares. Subsequently there arose some dispute between the parties on 12th March 1970. The petitioners called upon Haroon Rashid to render accounts of the business and on the other hand Haroon Rashid sent an application dated llth March 1970, to the Deputy Inspector- General of Police making allegations against the petitioners that they had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 2 lacs as well as one motor-car and three Hoonda Scooters, and further they had unlawfully occupied the office premises. Consequently the case was registered on 20th April 1970 ; and the applicants were cliallaued on 31st May 1971, i.e. more than a year after the registration of the case for an olTcncc under section 408, P. P. C. Consequently the present application was filed to quash the proceedings.
3. It was urged by the learned counsel for the applicants that not only the dispute was of civil nature and no criminal offence was made out in view of the unreported decision of the Supreme Court but the applicant No. 1 had made an application (No. 50/70) under section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in this Court and by a consent order the dispute was referred to the arbitration of Mr. S. M. Zahoorul Haq, Advocate. To support this contention the certified copies of the application made under section 18 of the Arbitration Act and the order passed thereon have been produced.
4. Thus after those proceedings having been drawn the question of the proceedings to be taken in criminal Court does not arise. Moreover, it was held by the Supreme Court in unreported decision in Criminal Appeal No. K-17/69 that a misappropriation by a partner would not amount to an offence but it was a dispute of a civil nature. The learned counsel quoted two more authorities reported in A 1 R 1951 Cal. 69 and A 1 R 1965 SC 1433, which also fully support his contention.
5. In the circumstances, I allow the application and quash the proceedings. .