' This is a petition under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. For quashment of proceedings started on a direct complaint for offence under section 420/506, P. P. C. Pending in the Court of A. C. M. No, 1, Hyderabad.
2. The allegations in the complaint were that accused/respondent Rehmat Masih had agreed to sell his property known as Javed Manzil at Moro for a sum of Rs, 50,000 and he had received in advance a sum of Rs, 40,000 from the complainant and had passed on a Russian Tractor to him as security. Afterwards it transpired that the building known as Javed Manzil did not belong to him but it belonged to his son and it could not be conveyed. Regarding the Russian Tractor it became known that the same was not property of the accused but belonged to Jati Agricultural Development Advisory Committee who had filed a Civil suit against the complainant for its return.
The accused/respondent had also filed a criminal complaint at Moro for return of the tractor and the said complaint is pending at Nawabshah.
3. Thus it is the case of the complainant/respondent Lal Din that Rs, 40,000 have been obtained from him by Rehmat Masih on false pretext and he has, therefore, been cheated.
4. It has been argued by Mr. M. Shakir Naqshbandi on behalf of the petitioner that the prosecution, if any, was of civil nature and the proceedings started on this complaint, therefore, be quashed. It has then been argued by Mr. Ramchand on behalf of Lal Deen respondent that Rs, 40,000 have been taken from him and he has neither been conveyed the building nor can he retain the tractor as the same is being claimed by certain society. That if these facts had been mentioned by the petitioner he would never have parted with so much cash: that the dealing of the petitioner has not, therefore, been clean and this is a matter which can be enquired into by a criminal Court.
5. It cannot be said that on the face of the complaint no criminal offence is made out. It is not for the High Court to interfere in pending criminal cases on the allegations and counter allegations of the parties for which the evidence has got to be looked in to. That is the function of the A trial Court.
A counter criminal complaint is already pending and it would have been better if both the complaints were tried by the same Court. However, that is a matter for the parties concerned. No case has been mad out for quashment and the petition is accordingly dismissed.