اگر چک بطور ضمانت دیا گیا هو تو ملزم کے خلاف ایف)) 489 کا پرچه نہیں هوسکتا
2016 P Cr. L J 769
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Cheque issued as security---Mala fide and ulterior motive on part of complainant---Bail before arrest, grant of---Word 'security cheque' were clearly mentioned on the back of the cheque---Complainant had in the FIR, and later before the Investigating Officer, had given two different purposes of issuing the cheque---Cheque, in said stances of the complainant, could not be said to have been issued towards repayment of loan or fulfillment of any obligation---Considering the material available on record, prima facie, the accused appeared to have been involved in the case due to mala fide and ulterior motives of the complainant---Recovery of amount under the disputed cheque could not be effected through criminal proceedings---Interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the accused was, therefore, confirmed accordingly.
Mian Muhammad Akram v. The State and others 2014 SCMR 1369 and Mian Allah Dita v. The State and others 2013 SCMR 51 rel.
Muhammad Ajmal Adil for Petitioner.
Ch. Muhammad Ishaq, Deputy Prosecutor-General with Maqbool Ahmad, ASI for the State.
Complainant in person.
MANSOOR MUMTAZ KHILJI VS State
2016 P Cr. L J 769[Lahore]Before Muhammad Qasim Khan, JMANSOOR MUMTAZ KHILJI---PetitionerVersusThe STATE and another---RespondentsCrl. Misc. No. 13064-B of 2015, decided on 01/12/2015.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.---Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.390/2015 dated 22.06.2015 under section 489-F, P.P.C. registered at police station Kotwali, District Faisalabad.
2.I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Prosecutor General and on perusal of the record, it has been observed that:-
i)On perusal of the original cheque, it has been observed that on its back, it is clearly mentioned that this is a security cheque;
ii)In the FIR the complainant stated that there was a business transaction with the petitioner but when he appeared before the Investigating Officer on 178.11.2015(sic.) he stated that petitioner was his employee and the cheque was executed at the time of his service to protect the interest of the Firm and this fact is incorporated in case Diary No.17;
iii)When both the above stances of the complainant are juxtaposed; in the light of later statement prima facie it cannot be said that the cheque was issued towards repayment of loan or fulfillment of any obligation;
iv)On consideration of the material so far collected by the prosecution, prima facie, it appears that petitioner has been involved in this case due to mala fide and ulterior motives of the complainant;
v)Even otherwise, the original cheque is already with the prosecution, whereas, recovery of amount under the disputed cheque cannot be effected through criminal proceedings.
3.For what has been discussed above, respectfully placing reliance on the case "Mian Muhammad Akram v. The State and others" (2014 SCMR 1369) and "Mian Allah Dita v. The State and others" (2013 SCMR 51), this application is allowed and interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.
SL/M-44/LBail allowed.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.---Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.390/2015 dated 22.06.2015 under section 489-F, P.P.C. registered at police station Kotwali, District Faisalabad.
2.I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Prosecutor General and on perusal of the record, it has been observed that:-
i)On perusal of the original cheque, it has been observed that on its back, it is clearly mentioned that this is a security cheque;
ii)In the FIR the complainant stated that there was a business transaction with the petitioner but when he appeared before the Investigating Officer on 178.11.2015(sic.) he stated that petitioner was his employee and the cheque was executed at the time of his service to protect the interest of the Firm and this fact is incorporated in case Diary No.17;
iii)When both the above stances of the complainant are juxtaposed; in the light of later statement prima facie it cannot be said that the cheque was issued towards repayment of loan or fulfillment of any obligation;
iv)On consideration of the material so far collected by the prosecution, prima facie, it appears that petitioner has been involved in this case due to mala fide and ulterior motives of the complainant;
v)Even otherwise, the original cheque is already with the prosecution, whereas, recovery of amount under the disputed cheque cannot be effected through criminal proceedings.
3.For what has been discussed above, respectfully placing reliance on the case "Mian Muhammad Akram v. The State and others" (2014 SCMR 1369) and "Mian Allah Dita v. The State and others" (2013 SCMR 51), this application is allowed and interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.
SL/M-44/LBail allowed.
0 Comments