1. ' The petitioner Muhammad Usman Khan has sought quashment of the criminal case pending against him under section 403/417/418, P.P.C. In the Court of A.C.M. IVth South, Karachi. The said case was started on a direct complaint filed by respondent Muhammad Arif Qureshi. The complainant's case is that he is a member of the Works Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Karachi and was allotted a Plot of 1,000 sq. Yards in Block No, 9 Gulshan-e-lqbal, Karachi by the said Society. After the allotment he paid several visits to the Office of the Society for the purpose of demarcation of the Plot and delivery of possession thereof but with no result. When the petitioner became the Secretary of the Society, he assured the complainant to solve his problem and promised to gat him another Plot in exchange of the Plot already allotted to him. On such assurance the complainant delivered to him the original allotment order. The complainant's friend Ali Zai also delivered the allotment order of his plot to the petitioner in the hope of getting another Plot in exchange. Thereafter both the complainant and his aforementioed friend were fed by the petitioner on false hopes until they came to know that the petitioner had got their Plots allotted to himself through other persons by Benami transaction. Thereupon they approached the petitioner for return of their allotment letters. Although he first tried to avoid, yet he finally refused to return their original allotment orders. The complainant, therefore, filed a direct complaint against him.
2. Before filing the present application for the quashment, the petitioner had moved the trial Court for his acquittal under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. But the said application was dismissed.
3. ' The learned counsel for the parties were heard at great length. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the prayer for the quashment are stated as under:-
(1) That the petitioner by virtue of being the Secretary of the Housing Society is a public servant and, therefore, only Special Judge, Anti-Corruption has exclusive jurisdiction to try him for the scheduled offences attributed to him.
(2) That since the Plots in dispute have been wrongly re-allotted to some other persons, the dispute has arisen between the complainant and his friend who are members of the Society and the Housing Society and the petitioner, the Society's office-bearer and for resolution of such dispute recourse can be made to sectin 54 of the Co-operative Societies. Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the 1925 Act).
(3) That the facts disclosed in the direct complaint do not make out any criminal offence for which the petitioner could be held liable.
4. As for the first contention, it was not disputed by the learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner, who was admittedly the Secretary of the Housing Society at the relevant time, was a public servant within the meaning of 1925 Act. It was also not denied that the offences the petitioner was alleged to have committed are scheduled offences, triable by Special Judge vide section 5 of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958. However, the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant was that offences attributed to the petitioner were not committed by him in discharge of his duties as the Secretary of the Society and as such the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to try such offences. I regaret my inability to agree with this argument. It is clear from the allegations made in the complaint that the petitioner persuaded the complainant and his friend to deliver their allotment orders to him as a Secretary of the Society. He held out a promise to them to get alternative Plots to them also in the capacity of the Secretary of the Society. Even the complainant entrusted the allotment orders to be petitioner as Secretary of the Housing Society. If he had no such capacity, they would not have delivered their allotment orders to him nor would they have believed him that he would get them other Plots in exchange. Even the re-allotment of their Plots in other person's names is alleged to be the act of the petitioner. Thus, there is no doubt that the offences alleged against the petitioner are committed by him as Secretary of the Society.
5. Accordingly he. Is triable for the said offences only by the Special Judge. The Court in which he is facing trial has no jurisdiction.
6. ' Taking up the next argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute involved in the case could be settled in accordance with seotion 54 of the 1925 Act, it may be observed that clauses (b) and (c) of section 54 are relevant in this regard. They read as under:- "54. Arbitration.-- If any dispute touching the business of a society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the Society or its committee against a paid servant of the society arises:-
(a) .
(b) between members or past members or person's so claiming and any past or present officer, agent or servant of the Society, or
(c) between the society or its committee, and any past or present members of the Society it shall be referred to the Registrar for decision by himself or his nominee, or if either of the parties so desires, to arbitration of three arbitrators, who shall be the Registrar or his nominee and two persons of whom one shall be nominated by each of the parties concern ' In the instant case the dispute has arisen between complainant and his friend on one hand and Society and the petitioner who is office-bearer of the Society on the other hand. The dispute is obviously over the re-allotment of the Plots belonging to the complainant and his friend to some other persons. As is clear from the above provisions of section 54, such dispute is capable of being resolved through arbitration proceedings.
7. ' Since the petitioner can be disposed of on the basis of the first two legal points as discussed above, I need not go into merits of the case. Accordingly the petition was allowed and the case pending against the petitioner in the Court of A.C.M. IVth South, Karachi was quashed by short order, dated 9-4-1985. It is, however, open to the complainant to seek remedy of his grievance at the appropriate forum as admissible to him under the law.