Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 420, 406

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 561

(a) Penal Code (XL V of 1860) Ss. 420 & 406-Cheating Criminal breach of trust-Liability merely on ground of cheque being dishonoured-Civil and not criminal. Riasat Ali v. State 1970-P Cr. L J 445 Saeeduddin Qureshi v. State P L D 1963 Kar. 54 ; R. S: Ratra v. Ganesh Das A I R 1940 Lah. 93 and .H.. K. Shaw v. Suresh Chandra Mitter A I R 1936 Cal:. 324 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 561-A-Quashment of proceeding-Facts stated in F. I. R: lodged under Ss. 420 & 406, Penal Code; showing inability or at worst a refusal on part of petitioners to pay outstanding amount-Held' such fact could not give rise to criminal liability against petitioners-Proceedings quashed-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420 & 406.   ORDER This is an application under section 561-A, Cr. P., C. for the quashment of criminal proceedings against the petitioners under sections 420/406, P. P. C. pending in the Court of Rana Muhammad Bashir, Magistrate 1st Class, Mianwali. The case arose from a direct complaint lodged by respondent Shah Jahan Khan against Gul Jamal Khan and Gul Muhammad Khan the present petitioners and one Saad Ullah, wherein it was alleged that Shah Jahan Khan had been supplying his cotton of Kharif 1968, through Gul Mohammad Khan and Saad Ullah to the shop of the accused persons situated at Kacha Khuh, that on settlement the accounts for the same a sum of Rs. 4,000 has been found due from the accused, that Gul Jamal Khan had, in payment of the said amount, issued a post-dated Cheque No. AWBA. 623656 dated 10-1-1969 on the Mian Channun Branch of the Habib Bank, that the cheque when presented was dishonoured on the ground that Gul Jamal Khan had no personal account with that Bank, that the accused when contacted promised to pay the amount from the cotton crop of Kharif 1969 and accordingly changed the date of payment of the cheque from 10-1-1969 to 10-11-1969, but that the cheque was again dishonoured for the same reason as before, when presented to the Bank. The complainant had Further alleged that the accused persons when contacted later had begged to be excused and had promised to pay the dues at an early date but that they had failed to do so…