' Chiragh Din and others have moved this petition under section 561-A of the Cr.P.C. For the quashment of the case lodged under ' sections 420, 461 and 471 of the P.P.C. Against them, which is pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge/Magistrate Section 30, Bahawalnagar.
2. Muhamamd Yaseen son of Haji Rehmat Ullah, the complainant is a working partner of the Firm, namely, Haji Muhammad Idrees and Company Commission Agents, Grain Market Donga Bonga, District Bahawalnagar. Haji Muhammad Boota Mustafa, Line Superintendent WAPDA Construction Bahawalpur, had familiarity with the complainant for the last 12 or 13 years. Haji Muhammad Boota Mustafa wrote a letter to the complainant that Chiragh Din, petitioner No,1, was his uncle and was running a Commission Agency in Grain Market, Vehari, who was to purchase rapeseed from him and he should extend co-operation in the matter. Chiragh Din, petitioner No,1, wrote a letter to the complainant and asked him to send him a truck load of rapeseed. Accordingly, the complainant sent a truck load of rapeseed on 7-5-1987 containing 140 bags valuing Rs,53,650. A receipt of this commodity was furnished by Chiragh Din, who promised to send the money immediately. Chiragh Din did not send any money for one month and the complainant was constrained to go to Vehari, but the matter was parried on different occasions. Finally, in August 1987, Chiragh Din, petitioner No,1, gave him two post-dated cheques valuing Rs,25,000 and Rs,28,650 respectively. When those cheques were presented to Habib Bank Limited, Vehari, they were dishonoured as the petitioners had no money in the Bank. Chiragh Din did not pay this amount to him and rather defrauded him by giving the cheques. He accordingly lodged the F.I.R. Against the petitioners, They are being tried in the Court of the learned Civil Judge/Magistrate Section 30, Bahawalnagar.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has cited Muhammad Saleem Rana and another v. Sh.
Saleem Hassan and another (PLD 1978 Lah.521) and Imam Bakhsh v. Muhamamd Yaqub and another (1969 PCr.LJ 354) in support of his contention and has contended that the post-dated cheques when dishonoured do not constitute an offence under section 420 of the P.P.C. In PLD 1978 Lahore 521, the learned Judge of this Court had found that mens rea in the conduct of the petitioner was not evident and, therefore, despite three post-dated cheques were dishonoured, the proceedings were quashed. In 1969 PCr.LJ 354, G had borrowed money from F on security of I and the cheque issued by G was dishonoured and F launched criminal prosecution against G and I under sections 420 and 406 of the P.P.C. Proceedings against I in the absence of evidence that he had himself either committed or abetted fraud were held to be misconceived and proceedings against I were quashed. It was further found in the said precedent that G was directly responsible for cheating while the other was, under the agreement, only a surety from whom the amount of the money advanced could be recovered. In the said precedent, the proceedings against G were not quashed.
4. In a similar case reported as Nasir All v. Munshi Mehar Khan (PLD 1981 Supreme Court 607) when the post-dated cheques were dishonoured, it was held to be cheating and the proceedings were not quashed.
5. In the circumstances, I decline to quash the proceedings as prayed for and dismiss this petition in limine. Cr.M.No,1-M-89/BWP.
6. Since the original petition for quashment has been dismissed in limine, this petition has become infructuous and stands disposed of.