' It was prayed in this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. That proceedings in the complaint captioned as Ibrahim v. Haji Muhammad Azam under sections 420, 406, 408, 468 and 470, P.P.C.
Pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-H, Bannu may be quashed. This complaint has been lodged by Ibrahim, respondent No,2 against the petitioner wherein it is alleged that father of the complainant and the accused (petitioner) have been running business for many years. It was in the presence of the complainant that his father paid Rs,7,50,000 to the petitioner in Bannu as loan which was payable within six months. This amount was not paid within the stipulated period and now the payment has been refused. It is alleged that the accused had thus render himself liable for misappropriation etc.
2. The background given in the petition for filing the complaint is that father of the complainant sold a car to the petitioner for Rs,3,15,000 but later on the Police took this car into possession on the ground that it was a stolen one. Petitioner, therefore, demanded the amount paid by him from the father of the respondent who executed agreement whereby he paid Rs,2,00,000 to the petitioner and promised to pay the balance in monthly installment of Rs,10,000. Father of the respondent in this connection filed a writ petition in High Court with a payer to direct the Police to register a case against the petitioner. Police looked into the matter and came to the conclusion that no criminal case could be made out against the petitioner. Both father and son colluded and instituted this frivolous complainant in the far-flung area of Bann with a view to put pressure on the petitioner and to cause him physical hardship and financial loss.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent and State.
4. It is pertinent to note that the complainant had neither alleged any business relation with the petitioner nor he has alleged having himself paid the disputed amount to the petitioner, therefore, it is inexplicable as to how the complainant is legally combatant to lodge this complaint. It is on this count alone that the complaint is liable to be quashed. It is borne out from the two agreements (annexed with the complaint) at Haji Kiramat father of the complainant had sold a car to the petitioner which was later on found to be a stolen car and Haji Kiramat admitted to pay back Rs,3,15,000, the amount which he had received as sale price. Therefore, if Haji Kermit feels aggrieved in any manner from this writing, then he can approach any competent Court for redress of his grievance. It is clear from these agreement deeds and the copy of the writ petition that father of the respondent has all along shown himself as resident of Chariot City and has also alleged therein that the business transaction between him and the petitioner took place there, then how is it that the petitioner shifted the cause of action, if any to District Bannu. This could not be explained by any other reason except by the reason to pressurize the petitioner and to involve him in a litigation in a district, to which the complainant, it is stated originally belonged. Moreover, keeping in view the allegations that the disputed amount was advanced as 'Qarz-e-Hasna', no criminal liability can be constituted.
5. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the proceedings in the complaint captioned as Ibrahim v.
Haji Muhammad Azam under sections 420, 406, 408, B 468 and 470, P.P.C. Pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Bannu are quashed.