Skip to main content

Importance of receipt in case of return of payment

By

 PLJ 2026 Cr.C. (Note) 114

[Lahore High Court Lahore]

Present: Abher Gul Khan, J.

MUHAMMAD ZAHID--Petitioner

versus

9STATE etc.--Respondents

Crl. Misc. No. 75900-B of 2024, decided on 17.3.2025.

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

----S. 498--Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F--Pre-arrest bail, dismissal of--Dishonoured of cheque--No receipt is available in order to establish the fact that outstanding amount for which cheque was issued stand cleared by the petitioner and the same is still outstanding against him. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner has miserably failed to establish any ill-will, mala fide or bias on the part of the complainant for falsely implicating the petitioner. As recovery is yet to be effected from the possession of the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled to the extra-ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.                             [Para 4] A

Mr. Muhammad Hassan Bodla, Advocate with Petitioner.

Ms. Rashida Parveen, ADPP for State.

Mian Muhammad Awais Mazhar, Advocate for Complainant.

Date of hearing: 17.3.2025.

Order

Through this petition, petitioner seeks pre arrest bail in case FIR No. 3572 dated 31.10.2024 registered under Sections 489-F, PPC, at Police Station Madina Town, District Faisalabad on the ground of false implication, mala fide intention and ulterior motive of the complainant who nominated him with the occurrence without having any involvement of the petitioner with the commission of offence.

2.       On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant vehemently opposed the bail petition and made a prayer for the dismissal of the same.

3.       Arguments heard. Record perused.

4.       Perusal of the record reveals that regarding issuance of cheque on 05.08.2024, F.I.R. was got registered on 31.10.2024 wherein accused is named with the specific role of issuance of cheque which was dishonored on its presentation before the concerned bank. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner although produced receipt in lieu of payment in order to establish that there is no outstanding liability and the amount was paid on 15.06.2024, 21.06.2024, 24.06.2024, 28.06.2024 & 30.06.2024 respectively, however no receipt is available in order to establish the fact that outstanding amount for which cheque was issued stand cleared by the petitioner and the same is still outstanding against him. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner has miserably failed to establish any ill-will, mala fide or bias on the part of the complainant for falsely implicating the petitioner. As recovery is yet to be effected from the possession of the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled to the extra-ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.

5.       In view of the above, the instant pre-arrest bail petition stands dismissed and ad-interim re-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is hereby recalled.

(A.A.K.)          Bail dismissed

Labels:
Location: Office No. F-16, 1st Floor, Afzal Center, near Family Courts, G-10/1 Courts, Islamabad, 44000, Pakistan

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Entrustment of property and dishonest misappropriation of entrusted property

By
  PLJ 2026 SC 96 [Appellate Jurisdiction] Present:   Sardar Tariq Masood and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, JJ. AYESHA TAYYAB--Petitioner versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION CANTT.DISTRICT SIALKOT, etc.--Respondents C.P. No. 1575 of 2024, decided on 22.5.2025. (On appeal against the order dated 08.03.2024 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 1684 of 2024) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 406--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199(1)(a)(ii)--Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898), S. 561-A--Quashment of criminal proceedings and Quashment of FIR--Entrustment of property and dishonest   misappropriation   of   entrusted   property--“Qarz-e-Hasna”--Amount was handed over as a loan/trust--High Court observed that no offence under section 406 PPC was made out from contents of FIR and proceeded to quash same under its constitutional jurisdiction conferred by Article 199--Contents of FIR determine whether a cogni...
Post a Comment
Read more

Co-sharer

By
Possession of one co-sharer in possession of all . 1998 MLD 857, 1857; 2006 YLR 831; 2008 SCMR 661, 616; 2008 SCMR 905. Co-sharer to establish right of co-heirship . 2008 MLD 278.  For  more , you can consult omara.khan789@gmail.com or call +923123450006
Post a Comment
Read more

Prosecution should be afforded fair opportunity of trial

By
  PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 42 [Balochistan High Court, Quetta] Present:  Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail and Rozi Khan Barrech, JJ. Dr.  MUHAMMAD ARIF--Appellant versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR and 3 others--Respondents Crl. Acq. A. No. 461 of 2019, decided on 21.12.2020. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----Ss. 265-K, 249-A & 417(2)--Jurisdiction u/S. 265-K, Cr.P.C.--Exercise of powers--Appeal against acquittal--The object of exercise of powers is to prevent abuse of law available to learned trial Court under sections 265-K and 249-A of Cr.P.C., however, in a case where sufficient, prima facie, evidence is available, powers may not be exercised as to throttle process of justice--The primary consideration to be kept in view would be whether continuance of proceedings before could be a futile exercise, wastage of time and abuse of process of Court or not--If on basis of facts admitted and a patent on record no offence can be made out, then it would amount to abuse of proc...
Post a Comment
Read more