This is a petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. By Allah Ditta. Petitioner, for the quashment of a private complaint case instituted against him by Malik Rustam, respondent No. 2, under sections 420/406, P.P.C. Pending in the Court of Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, M.I.C., Mianwali.
2. The brief facts leading up to this petition are that on 7-11-1983 Malik Rustam, respondent No. 2, filed a private complaint against Allah Ditta, petitioner, alleging that the latter had agreed to sell his tractor No. FDB-6352 (Model 1975) to him for Rs.95,000, against which he received cash payment of Rs.70,000 and the balance sum of Rs.25,000 was to be paid after two months against delivery of the tractor, but that when the term expired and the respondent went to collect the tractor, the petitioner stated that he would not part with the same, but would return the sum of Rs.70,000 received by him within a week. The complainant further stated that though more than a week had passed by, the petitioner had neither delivered the tractor against the balance price nor returned the amount of Rs.70,000 received by him.
3. Mr. Rafiq Ahmad Bajwa, Advocate, appears for the petitioner. Sh. Muhammad Islam, Advocate, appears for the State. Malik Rustam, respondent No. 2, was earlier served for 28-1-1984, but he did not engage any counsel. The tablaq of this case shows that Registered A.D. Notice was issued to respondent No. 2 for today's date of hearing, but the said respondent has not turned up.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State and have perused the documents on the file. Reading the bare complaint, as it stands, one cannot escape the conclusion that the, transaction appears to be of a civil nature. This, therefore, shows the mala fide conduct of the complainant to drag the petitioner into criminal proceedings, instead of moving the Civil Court. It is also alleged that Malik Rustam, respondent No. 2, is actually an agent of one Abdul Sattar son of Munshi Khan, against whom the petitioner has litigation both civil and criminal, as detailed in paras. 1 and 2 of the petition, that the said respondent is not known to the petitioner at all nor the petitioner had any dealings with him and that he has basically been set up by the said Abdul Sattar to harass the petitioner by drawing him to Mianwali so as to exert undue pressure on him to withdraw or compromise the case he has; instituted. The assertion is not without substance, taking into consideration the fact that there is no disclaimer from respondent No. 2 on the record. Taking all circumstances into consideration, the private complaint instituted by Malik Rustam, respondent No. 2 against Allah Ditta, petitioner, deserves to be quashed.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted and the private complaint lodged by Malik Rustam, respondent No. 2, against Allah Ditta, petitioner, under section 420/468, P.P.C. Pending in the Court of Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, M.I.C., Mianwali, is hereby quashed.