قبل از گرفتاری ضمانت، تصدیق شدہ -- چیک وں کی بے حرمتی کا الزام - چیک کسی واجب الادا قرض کی ادائیگی کے لئے جاری نہیں کیے گئے تھے بلکہ درخواست گزار اور..............

 PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 110

[Lahore High Court, Lahore]

Present: Shehram Sarwar Ch., J.

ASGHAR ALI--Petitioner

versus

STATE etc.--Respondents

Crl. Misc. No. 68229-B of 2023, decided on 7.2.2024.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----S. 498--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F

-- قبل از گرفتاری ضمانت، تصدیق شدہ -- چیک وں کی بے حرمتی کا الزام - چیک کسی واجب الادا قرض کی ادائیگی کے لئے جاری نہیں کیے گئے تھے بلکہ درخواست گزار اور شکایت کنندہ کے درمیان کاروباری تعلقات تھے جس کے بارے میں درخواست گزار نے شکایت کنندہ کے حق میں ضمانت کے طور پر دو کھلے چیک جاری کیے - جیسا کہ لاء آفیسر نے تصدیق کی ہے کہ درخواست گزار اس نوعیت کے کسی بھی معاملے میں ملوث نہیں ہے - حالات میں ، شکایت کنندہ کی جانب سے درخواست گزار کو غلط ثابت کرنے سے انکار نہیں کیا جا سکتا- درخواست کی اجازت دی جاتی ہے اور عبوری ضمانت پہلے ہی دی جا چکی ہے۔

--Pre-arrest bail, confirmed--Allegation of--Dishonoured of cheques--Cheques in question were not issued towards repayment of some outstanding loan rather there was business relationship qua feed between petitioner and complainant regarding which petitioner issued two open cheques as guarantee in favour of complainant--As confirmed by Law Officer petitioner is not involved in any case of such like nature--In circumstances, malafide on part of complainant for faise implication of petitioner cannot be ruled out--Petition is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already allowed. [Para 4] A & B

2013 SCMR 51.

Mr. Muhammad Asim Riaz Rana, Advocate along with Petitioner.

Sh. Muhammad Nouman Siddique, APG for State.

M/s. Kabir Ahmad Ch and Adeela Mustafa, Advocates for Complainant.

Date of hearing: 7.2.2024.

Order

Asghar Ali, petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 594 dated 10.04.2023, offence under Section 489-F PPC, registered at Police Station Shadman District Lahore.

2. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioner is that he issued two cheques amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/-in favour of complainant which on presentation were dishonoured by the concerned bank.

3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Law Officer and going through the record.

4. As apprised by learned Law Officer, it was concluded during the course of investigation vide zimni dated 14.09.2023 that the cheques in question were not issued towards repayment of some outstanding loan rather there was business relationship qua feed between the petitioner and the complainant regarding which the petitioner issued two open cheques as guarantee in favour of the complainant. In a similar situation the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while dealing with the case titled as “Mian Allah Ditta vs. The State and others” (2013 SCMR 51) observed as under:

“6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Law Officer at some length and having gone through the record, we find that the agreement dated 17-8-2011 to which reference has been made by complainant’s learned counsel is of a prior date which was overtaken by a subsequent arbitration accord dated 24-11-2011 and the cheque dated 20-7-2012 ex facie appears to be connected with the said subsequent arbitration accord. This is also borne out from the finding in investigation carried out by the police. According to the investigating officer the cheque issued amounting to
Rs. 2500,000 was by way of security, rather than for the discharge of liability to the tune of the amount mentioned in the said cheque. He further added that in terms of the award given by the Arbitrator, petitioner owes only Rs. 6,50,000. Be that as it may, we would not like to go into depth of the issue lest it may prejudice anyone during investigation or trial. But the case in hand begs a question as to what constitutes an offence under Section 489-F P.P.C. Every transaction where a cheque is dishonoured may not constitute an offence. The foundational elements to constitute an offence under this provision are issuance of a cheque with dishonest intent, the cheque should be towards repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation and lastly that the cheque in question is dishonored.”

As confirmed by learned Law Officer petitioner is not involved in any case of such like nature. In the circumstances, malafide on the part of complainant for false implication of petitioner cannot be ruled out. Therefore, this petition is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioner is hereby confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-(rupees one lakh only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

5.  Before parting with this order, it is clarified that the observations made in this order are tentative in nature and relevant only for the disposal of this bail petition which shall not influence the learned trial Court in any manner, whatsoever.

(A.A.K.)          Bail allowed