By means of this Constitutional petition, Messrs Lahore Bricks (Private) Limited, have prayed that registration of the criminal case under section 420/460, P.P.C. Against them at Police Station Wahdat Colony, Lahore, vide F.I.R. No. 390, dated 9-8-1989 may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence and accordingly, the said F.I.R. May be quashed.
2. Shortly stated the facts are that a criminal case under section 406/420, P.P.C. Was registered against the petitioners on the statement of Liaoning, complainant, with Police Station Wahdat Colony, Lahore, on 9-8-1989. Messrs China Liaoning International Limited, is owned and run by the Peoples Republic of China. It undertook to complete a project at Gujjarpura, Lahore. On 31-8-1988, 14-11-1988 and 19-1-1989, three agreements were entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.2. Under the agreement, Raja Muhammad Sadiq, Managing Director of the petitioner-Company got a sum of Rs.4,00,000 from the complainant for the supply of red bricks. It is mentioned in the F.I.R. That some bricks were supplied by the petitioner to the respondent No.2 but the remaining bricks in accordance with the agreements were not given to it. A demand was made by the respondent from the petitioner either to give them the requisite bricks or to return the amount received by them in advance. The petitioner neither returned the money nor supplied the bricks to respondent No.2. It was alleged in the F.I.R. That the petitioner-company has thus committed a fraud with respondent No.2 and thereby they have been deprived of a sum of Rs.2,90,000. It was disclosed that the money has been embezzled by the petitioner which belonged to the Peoples Republic of China.
3. The only point raised and argued by the learned counsel is that the case in hand pertains to a dispute which is primarily of civil nature and in this connection, a civil suit has been instituted by the petitioner against respondent No.2 which suit is still pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court. It is argued that there was no jurisdiction vested with the police to register a case against the petitioner on the dispute which is of civil nature. Learned counsel says that the petitioner is sure to succeed before the civil Court and that he would get substantial amount of damages from the respondent. According to the learned counsel, the contract could not be completed because of the default on the part of respondent No.2. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Karamat Hussain and another v. Muhammad Zaman and others PLD 1987 SC 139, Syed Manzoor Hussain Shah v. Syed Agha Hussain Naqvi and another 1983 SCMR 775, Muhammad Anwar v. State 1980 P Cr. L J 823 and Mst. Sughran Mai v. The State PLD 1980 Lah. 386, in support of his pleas. The learned Advocate-General and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submit that a sum of Rs.3,95,000 was lying with the petitioner and that this amount was definitely held by them as a trust. Their refusal to return the amount to respondent No.2 means that they are guilty of misappropriation and fraud on their part. Learned counsel submits that the facts as mentioned in the F.I.R. Demonstrate beyond any shadow of doubt that the petitioners have committed a cognizable offence and that police was competent to launch prosecution under the law.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have perused the record.
No case has been made out by the petitioner to quash the F.1.R. Admittedly, all the bricks have not been supplied by the petitioner to respondent No.2 as required by the contracts between the parties. Again, admittedly, substantial amount was lying with the petitioner for which they were required to give bricks to respondent No.2. Thus, prima facie, there is an element of criminal liability on the part of the petitioner. The question whether some offence has been committed or not is a question which shall be determined by the competent Criminal Court on the basis of evidence. This is not the stage to say that no offence has been committed by the petitioner. The fact that civil suit between the parties is pending does not mean that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by respondent No.2. Again, it is observed that this has to be found out by the competent Court on the basis of evidence of the parties as to whether some offence has been committed or not. Suffice it to say, that no case whatsoever has teen made out for interference at this stage. The case is being investigated by the competent Police Officer. It is well-settled that the investigation cannot be stifled in its infancy unless it is shown to have been based or, mala fides or no offence is made out on the very face of record. These essentials arc missing from this case. In the circumstances, the Constitutional petition being wholly devoid of force is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, as requested by the learned counsel for th, parties, a direction to the learned Civil Court is issued to conclude trial of the civil suit between the parties on or before 30-7-191.