' Taj Muhammad petitioner has moved this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For abashment of proceedings under sections 406, 467 and 471, P.P.C. Pending in the Court of Mr. Waheed Akhtar Ansari, Magistrate First Class, Model Town, Lahore.
2. The case was registered on 15th March, 1988 on a written complaint made by Dr. Qadeer Chaudhry, Senior Medical Officer, Camp Jail, Lahore, wherein he alleged that ten or twelve months back he was informed by Muhammad Rashid of Bismillah Property Dealers, Mochipura, Main Road, Township, Lahore, that plot No, 110-B, Government Employees Co-Operative Housing Society, Lahore, measuring one Kanal, owned by Taj Muhammad (petitioner herein), was available for sale.
He inspected the plot and purchased it for Rs,1,35,000. He paid the full price to Taj Muhammad who executed receipts in his favour. Later on, he received a notice from Taj Muhammad wherein he denied the receipt of the sale price and declined to transfer the plot to him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations in the F.I.R. Do not disclose the commission of any offence under sections 406, 467 and 471, P.P.C. And these proceedings have been instituted by the complainant, who is a very influential person, to enforce an alleged civil liability through the machinery of criminal law. He further states that after registration of the case the petitioner was arrested and kept in jail as an undertrial for fifty-three days whereafter he was released on bail. It is further submitted that the petitioner received only Rs,10,000 on 9-4-1985 and an equal amount again on 19-4-1985 but the complainant declined to pay the remaining amount, therefore, the petitioner refused to transfer the plot. Learned counsel submits that these criminal proceedings are mala fide which should be quashed or in the alternative, the same be stayed till the disposal of the civil suit.
' The complainant was not impleaded as a respondent in this petition. However, by order, dated 13- 6-1988, office was directed to issue a notice to him at his address given in the F.I.R. I have heard his learned counsel. He submits that this petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternate remedy under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. He further submits that the F.I.R. Does show the commission of offences under sections 406, 467, 471 and 420, P.P.C. He has referred to certain documents from his own brief to contend that the petitioner had received the entire price of the plot amounting to Rs,1,35,000. The learned State counsel also supports these contentions.
4. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. There is no substance in the contention that this petition is not maintainable. There is nothing to bar this Court from entertaining a petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Directly, in appropriate cases. The learned counsel for the complainant was asked to read out that portion of the F.I.R. Which contains the allegation of cheating or forgery by the petitioner or use of forged documents by him but he could not show any such allegation from the contents of the F.I.R. A bare reading of the F.I.R. Would show that there was an agreement between the complainant and the petitioner through Muhammad Rashid for the sale of plot for consideration of Rs,1,35,000. The petitioner's case is that the complainant paid him Rs,10,000 only on 9-4-1985 and another Rs,10,000 on 19-4-1985 but declined to pay the remaining amount and he refused to transfer the plot to him. The complainant's case, according to the F.I.R. Is that he had paid the entire amount of Rs,1,35,000 but through a notice served on him the petitioner denied to have received the full payment and declined to transfer the plot in his favour. If it be assumed that the complainant had paid the entire amount, even then it would remain a civil liability. The complainant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner and aforesaid Muhammad Rashid on 2-4-1986 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Lahore.
A photo copy of the plaint has been placed on the file. No allegation of criminal breach of trust, forgery or use of forged documents has been even made therein against the defendants, i,e, the petitioner herein and aforesaid Muhammad Rashid. If the contents of the F.I.R. Are accepted as true, the same would not establish any offence against the petitioner. The dispute is clearly of a civil nature and criminal proceedings have been launched to harass the petitioner, and not to secure the ends of justice. In the circumstances, this petition is allowed and the proceedings pending in the Court of Mr. Waheed Akhtar Ansari, Magistrate First Class, Model Town, Lahore, are quashed.