Abdul Karim, petitioner, has challenged the order of the learned trial Magistrate whereby after having record some evidence in the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 he framed a charge against the petitioner under section 420, P. P. C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the matter at best gave rise to an actionable wrong as also indicated by the civil suit simultaneously filed by the respondent for the recovery of the amount in question.
3. Having been taken through the record, I find that the allegations contained in the complaint are that on the 30th of May 1969, the petitioner issued cheque No. CAO 24960 drawn on the Central Bank Ltd., Gujranwala in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs. 2,480 on account of the money due to the latter from the labourers working at his brick-kiln who on the request of the petitioner were allowed to leave the kiln of the respondent so as to be employed by the petitioner. The cheque was twice dishonoured with the result that the respondent was relieved of the labour as also of the sum of Rs. 2,480 advanced by him to his labourers. It is alleged in the complaint that / when the petitioner issued a post-dated cheque in favour of the respondent, he was conscious of the fact that he had no amount to his credit in the aforesaid bank and as such having fraudulently relieved the respondent of his labour and issued a post-dated cheque he committed the offence of cheating.
4. It is well settled that the complaint is to be taken at its face value. Prima facie, from the allegations as contained therein, the ingredients of an offence under section 415, P. P. C. can be spelt out. It is equally well settled that the mere simultaneous pendency of a civil suit does not operate as a bar to the initiation or progress of criminal proceedings. Accordingly, I see no force in