Case Details

Citation(s)
1962 SLG 2749 = 1962 SLD 2749 = 1962 PLD 167
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Revision No. 23 of 1962, decided on 14th May 1962.
Presented By: Falzullah, J
Muhammad Afzal Khan for ,Petitioner.   Malik Abdul Latif Khan for
Respondent.   S. Ghazanfar Ali Shah A. A: G. for the State.   Dates of hearing : 30th April, 7th and 14th May 1962.

J. S. DAVER-Petitioner  

VERSUS

  IQBAL QADIR AND ANOTHER-Respondents  

Law: Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

Section: S. 561-A

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561-A-Abuse of process of CourtComplaint disclosing civil liability and not criminal offence-Sole purpose of complaint to enforce by coercion civil claim against accused- Proceedings quashed not only, against petitioner under S. 561-A but also against another co accused not before Court.   M. M. S. T. Chidambaram Chetttar v. Shanmugham Pillai A I R 1938 Mad. 129 rel.   (b) Criminal Procedure Code (Y of 1898), Ss. 200 & 202 Magistrate's statutory obligation to scrutinize carefully complaint before issuing process.  JUDGMENT   This is a revision petition by J. S. Daver, resident of 5 Crescent Court Off Victoria Road, Karachi-3, under section 435, Cr. P. C. against the order dated 13th December 1961, of the District Magistrate, Peshawar, whereby the revision of respondent No. 1, namely Iqbal Qadir, Managing Director, Mrs. Peshawar Motors Limited (complainant) against the order of discharge under section 259 Cr. P. C. passed by Qazi Muhammad Afzal Khan, Magistrate 1st Class, Peshawar, on 30th August 1961, was accepted and the order of dismissal set aside and the case remanded for fresh trial.   The facts of the case so far as they are not in dispute are as follows :-   The petitioner was an employee working as Manager in the Firm of Messrs Perviz Merwanjee Bomanjee Dalal of Karachi of which Firm Mrs. Perviz Merwanjee Bomanjee Dalal was the sole proprietor. The Peshawar Motors Limited through Iqbal Qadir, Managing Director, through their brokers at Karachi entered into Forward Contracts with the said Firm on different dates, for supply of Bonus Vouchers. Some of these contracts were fulfilled by the Firm. The petitioner left the service of the Firm in which he was employed before the time fixed for delivery of the Bonus Vouchers on the two remaining contracts between the Firm and the complainant Company. The Karachi Firm appears to have run into difficulty and could not honour some of the contracts entered with some of its creditors, Includ ing the complainant Company. The complainant Company along with other creditors of the Firm joined hands and received certain payments towards the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register