This petition under section 561-A of the Cr.P.C. Seeks the quashment of a case registered against the petitioner at Police Station Mozang, Lahore under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R.
No.218/89, dated 2nd of October, 1989 in pursuance to a memorandum of the Motor Registration Authority stating that the petitioner had produced a bogus letter of sale in respect of the Suzuki Motor Car and managed to have the vehicle registered in his name fraudulently.
2. The quashment is sought on the ground that previously, at the instance of one Sohail Anwar who claimed to have purchased the car from the petitioner, a case with respect to the same offences was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Islampura which was cancelled by the Magistrate and as such no case could subsequently be registered against him in view of section 403 of the Cr.P.C. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a civil suit between the petitioner and respondent No.3 was pending before the Civil Court and further that the petitioner has also filed a private complaint against the respondent before a Magistrate in which he has been summoned.
3. Mr. Rashid Rahim, the learned counsel for respondent No.4, on the other hand, maintained that the facts of the cases were different. The earlier case was lodged by Sohail Akhtar, a purchaser of the car from the petitioner who alleged that he has been, defrauded by him by selling a car which did not belong to him while the subsequent case has been registered at the instance of Motor Registration Authority for having forged and fabricated letter of sale. It was explained by the learned counsel that as a matter of fact the Suzuki car belonged to Saleem Akhtar from whom respondent No.4 purchased it and later on handed it over to the petitioner on hire in pursuance to an agreement between them.
4. There is considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.4. A perusal of the record of Criminal Miscellaneous No.3061-B of 1989 shows that the application for bail was disposed of by this Court on 27th August, 1989 on the ground that complainant in that case namely Sohail Anwar and the petitioner had entered into a compromise in pursuance whereof the petitioner had refunded the price received by him to Sohail Anwar who agreed to drop the proceedings. In the present case the allegation is that the petitioner had procured the registration by fabricating certain documents. The two cases are based on different facts and the complainants in the two matters are also different. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim any benefit of the cancellation of the previous case especially when the cancellation was a result of compromise between that complainant and the petitioner and not on merits. The petitioner cannot successfully invoke the principle of `Autrefois acquittal' as embodied in section 403 of the Cr.P.C.
Which has absolutely no applicability here as the petitioner wag never acquitted of the charge by any Court of competent jurisdiction.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has however, relied upon a judgment of this Court in Gul Taj and another v The State 1979 P Cr. L J 452 to contend that the registration of the case for the second time is without lawful authority. This case has no applicability and is distinguishable on facts. In the precedent case, the proceedings were initially lodged by Forest Department, which imposed penalty upon the accused and compounded the matter. The prosecution by the police in the circumstances was held to be mala fide. In the present case, not only the complainants in the two matters are different but the allegations are also not the same.
As a result of what has been stated above, this petition has no force and is dismissed.