Sami-ud-Din vs Nadeem Ahmad

2013 Y L R 2218

[Peshawar]

Before Qaiser Rashid Khan, J

SAMI-UD-DIN---Petitioner

Versus

NADEEM AHMAD and 2 others---Respondents

Criminal Miscellaneous No.162 of 2012, decided on 29th January, 2013.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----Ss. 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Quashing of F.I.R. under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C.--- Scope--- Commencement of trial---Availability of alternate remedy---Effect---Accused had business relations with the complainant and to pay an outstanding amount accused issued a cheque to the complainant, which got dishonoured on presentation due to insufficient funds---F.I.R. was registered after proper inquiry---Trial in the case had commenced, therefore, there was no reason to quash the F.I.R.---Accused had the remedy to move an application before the Trial Court under either S. 265-K Cr.P.C. or S. 249-A, Cr.P.C.---Petition for quashing of F.I.R. was dismissed accordingly.

Qudratullah Khan Gandapur for Petitioner.

Saleemullah Khan Ranazai for Respondent No.1.

Sanaullah Shamim, D.A.-G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 29th January, 2013.

JUDGMENT

QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.---Through the instant petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C, the petitioner Sami-ud-Din seeks quashment of the case F.I.R. No.549 dated 9-6-2012 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. at Police Station Cantt: D.I.Khan.

2.Brief facts of the case are that on 15-9-2011, Nadeem Ahmad, respondent No.1 submitted an application to the DPO, D.I.Khan for registration of case against the petitioner on the allegations that he had friendly business relations with the petitioner and that the petitioner had to pay a sum of Rs.24,00,000 to him for which, the petitioner issued a cheque on 15-10-2010 payable by the Bank of Khyber, D.I.Khan in favour of the respondent No.1 but it was dishonoured due to lack of fund in the account of the petitioner. The said application was marked to the S.H.O., Police Station Cantt: D.I.Khan who conducted an inquiry under section 156(3), Cr.P.C. and thereafter the F.I.R. ibid was registered against the petitioner.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner with mala fide intentions; that the allegations contained in the application of the respondent No.1 constitute a civil liability for which the available remedy to him is the civil court anti not the criminal proceedings and that different criminal cases have been registered against the respondent No.1 as he is in the habit of committing fraud and cheating.

4.The learned D.A.-G. assisted by private counsel for the complainant opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and argued that the petitioner issued a chqeue for an amount of Rs.24,00,000 in favour of the respondent No.1 which on presentation, was dishonourerd by the concerned Bank for lack of amount in the account of the petitioner and thus, the F.I.R. has rightly been registered against under section 489-F, P.P.C.

5.Arguments heard and record perused.

6.As per the record, the respondent No.1 submitted an application to the DPO, D.I.Khan for registration of a case against the petitioner on the allegations that he had business relations with the petitioner and that the petitioner had to pay a sum of Rs.24,00,000 to him for which, the petitioner issued a cheque on 15-10-2010 payable by the Bank of Khyber, D.I. Khan in favour of the respondent No.1 which on presentation was dishonoured due to insufficient balance in the account of the petitioner.

7.Without commenting upon the merits of the case lest it may not prejudice the case of either party, suffice it to say that the F.I.R. has been registered against the petitioner after proper inquiry and above all, trial in the case has commenced, therefore, at this stage, I do not see any reason to quash the F.I.R. However, the petitioner has the remedy to move an application before the learned trial Court under section 265-K Cr.P.C. or section 249-A, Cr.P.C. as the case may be, which shall be decided in accordance with law.

8.For the reasons mentioned above, there is no force in the instant petition which is hereby dismissed.

MWA/226/P Petition dismissed.