| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3108 2025 SLD 3108 = 2025 PCRLJ 648 |
Balochistan High Court
Constitution Petitions Nos. 1745, 1746 of 2022, 1374 of 2023, Criminal Quashment No. 564 of 2022, Constitution Petitions Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 2023, decided on 30th September, 2024.
Before Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail and Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, JJ
Muhammad Ewaz Zehri, Abdul Bari Khan Kakar and Sadam Bari for Petitioners (in Constitution Petition No. 1745 of 2022). Muhammad Younus Mengal Additional P.G. for
Respondent No. 1 (in Constitution Petition No. 1745 of 2022). Shabbir Sherani and Zubair Davi for
Respondent No. 2. (in Constitution Petition No. 1745 of 2022). Muhammad Ewaz Zehri, Abdul Bari Khan Kakar and Sadam Bari for Petitioners (in Constitution Petition No. 1746 of 2022). Shabbir Sherani and Zubair Davi for
Respondent No. 2. (in Constitution Petition No. 1746 of 2022). Muhammad Younus Mengal Additional P.G. for
Respondent No. 1 (in Constitution Petition No. 1746 of 2022). Muhammad Ewaz Zehri, Abdul Bari Khan Kakar and Sadam Bari for Petitioners (in Constitution Petition No. 1374 of 2023). Muhammad Younus Mengal Additional P.G. for
Respondent (in Constitution Petition No. 1374 of 2023). Muhammad Ewaz Zehri, Abdul Bari Khan Kakar and Sadam Bari for Petitioners (in Crl. Misc. Quashment No. 564 of 2022). Muhammad Younus Mengal Additional P.G. for
Respondent No. 1 (in Crl. Misc. Quashment No. 564 of 2022). Shabbir Sherani and Zubair Davi for
Respondent No. 2 (in Crl. Misc. Quashment No. 564 of 2022). Muhammad Ewaz Zehri, Abdul Bari Khan Kakar and Sadam Bari for Petitioners (in Constitution Petition No. 13745 of 2023). Muhammad Younus Mengal Addl; P.G. for
Respondent (in Constitution Petition No. 1375 of 2023). Muhammad Ewaz Zehri, Abdul Bari Khan Kakar and Sadam Bari for Petitioners (in Constitution Petition No. 1376 of 2023). Shabbir Sherani and Zubair Davi for
Respondent (in Constitution Petition No. 1376 of 2023). Muhammad Younus Mengal Addl; P.G. for Official Responent (in Constitution Petition No. 1376 of 2023).
Constitution Petitions Nos. 1745, 1746 of 2022, 1374 of 2023, Criminal Quashment No. 564 of 2022, Constitution Petitions Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 2023, decided on 30th September, 2024.
Before Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail and Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, JJ
Muhammad Ewaz Zehri, Abdul Bari Khan Kakar and Sadam Bari for Petitioners (in Constitution Petition No. 1745 of 2022). Muhammad Younus Mengal Additional P.G. for
Respondent No. 1 (in Constitution Petition No. 1745 of 2022). Shabbir Sherani and Zubair Davi for
Respondent No. 2. (in Constitution Petition No. 1745 of 2022). Muhammad Ewaz Zehri, Abdul Bari Khan Kakar and Sadam Bari for Petitioners (in Constitution Petition No. 1746 of 2022). Shabbir Sherani and Zubair Davi for
Respondent No. 2. (in Constitution Petition No. 1746 of 2022). Muhammad Younus Mengal Additional P.G. for
Respondent No. 1 (in Constitution Petition No. 1746 of 2022). Muhammad Ewaz Zehri, Abdul Bari Khan Kakar and Sadam Bari for Petitioners (in Constitution Petition No. 1374 of 2023). Muhammad Younus Mengal Additional P.G. for
Respondent (in Constitution Petition No. 1374 of 2023). Muhammad Ewaz Zehri, Abdul Bari Khan Kakar and Sadam Bari for Petitioners (in Crl. Misc. Quashment No. 564 of 2022). Muhammad Younus Mengal Additional P.G. for
Respondent No. 1 (in Crl. Misc. Quashment No. 564 of 2022). Shabbir Sherani and Zubair Davi for
Respondent No. 2 (in Crl. Misc. Quashment No. 564 of 2022). Muhammad Ewaz Zehri, Abdul Bari Khan Kakar and Sadam Bari for Petitioners (in Constitution Petition No. 13745 of 2023). Muhammad Younus Mengal Addl; P.G. for
Respondent (in Constitution Petition No. 1375 of 2023). Muhammad Ewaz Zehri, Abdul Bari Khan Kakar and Sadam Bari for Petitioners (in Constitution Petition No. 1376 of 2023). Shabbir Sherani and Zubair Davi for
Respondent (in Constitution Petition No. 1376 of 2023). Muhammad Younus Mengal Addl; P.G. for Official Responent (in Constitution Petition No. 1376 of 2023).
Sardar HAFEEZ LONI and others---Petitioners
VERSUS
The STATE and others---Respondents
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (IV of 1898)
Section: 154,234,239A,265K,561A
Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section: XXXVII,2
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 249-A, 265-K, 561-A & 154---Quashing of FIR and orders---Scope--Complainant sold out a number of Tractors and different machineries to the petitioner, who in lieu thereof issued a post-dated cheque worth Rs.125,000,000/-which was dishonoured, thus, the complainant lodged FIR and simultaneously filed a summary suit under O.XXXVII, R.2, C.P.C---However, the matter between the parties was resolved through arbitration, whereby outstanding amount of Rs.125,000,000/- was reduced to Rs.90,000,000/- and Judicial Magistrate acquitted the petitioner in the FIR---Several post-dated cheques were issued by the petitioner but were dishonoured when presented before the bank, thus different FIRs were lodged against the accused-petitioner--Before the challan, the petitioner filed application for quashing the FIR, however, the challan was submitted---Petitioner filed application under S.249A, Cr.P.C but same was dismissed---During Trial the complainant filed an application for recording his statement through E-system, which was allowed but due to some technical issues, it could not be implemented as such the Trial Court modified the said order by appointing one man Commission to record the statement of complainant at his residence---Validity---Although the cheques had been issued in lieu of a sale transaction of tractors and machineries sold by the complainant to the petitioner, however, while considering the peculiar circumstances, it showed that prima facie cheques were issued and dishonoured on different dates, therefore, the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner had no substance that FIRs merit to be quashed on the basis of double jeopardy--Thus, dismissal of the application filed under S.249-A, Cr.P.C, suffered from no error of law and facts---As far as quashment petition filed before the submission of challan was concerned, since other constitutional petitions on the similar point had been held to be devoid of merits, therefore, the instant petition also being meritless, unsustainable and having no justification and legal backing merited dismissal as well---Since the cheques were dishonoured within the span of…