ABDUL REHMAN vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT KHAN ETC.
This matter arises from criminal petitions for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's applications for the quashment of criminal proceedings under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner is facing prosecution under sections 419 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code on allegations of purchasing timber and issuing post-dated cheques that were subsequently dishonoured. The core legal question concerns whether criminal proceedings ought to be quashed under section 561-A when the case involves disputed questions of fact regarding the transaction and the intent of the accused. The Supreme Court held that disputed questions of fact, such as the circumstances of issuing the cheques and whether the dispute is purely civil in nature, require investigation through the recording of evidence by the trial court and cannot be resolved in quashment proceedings. The Court affirmed that the High Court rightly refused to quash the proceedings, establishing that factual controversies must be determined by the appropriate trial court rather than at the leave to appeal stage.
- Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code when the case involves disputed questions of fact?
- Can a dispute involving the issuance of dishonoured cheques be classified as purely civil without recording evidence at the trial stage?
- Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to interfere with criminal proceedings that require factual investigation by the trial court?
- Section 419, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code
ORDER
1. ' ANWARUL HAQ, C J.-This order will dispose of Criminal Petitions for Leave to Appeal bearing Nos.
2. 66-R and 67-R of 1979, which proceed on identical facts.
3. ' The petitioner is facing prosecution in the Court of Assistant Commissioner, Bannu, on charges falling under sections 419 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code on the allegations that he had purchased timber from two timber merchants, namely, Muhammad Hayat Khan and Haji Latifullah Khan of Bannu. He paid part of the purchase price in cash and issued post-dated cheques for the remaining amount in each case. It is alleged by the complainants that these cheques were dishonoured at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner applied for quashment of the proceedings under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, but his petitions were dismissed by a learned Judge of the Peshawar High Court by his order dated the 27th of May, 1979. He now seeks leave to appeal in both these cases.
4. ' The main ground urged in support of these petitions by Mr. Akhtar Ali is that, in fact, the petitioner had never visited Bannu and had never entered into any transactions with the two respondents in these cases ; and that he had issued the cheques in question in favour of one Bakht Ali of Gujranwala who seems to have mysteriously and dishonestly passed on these cheques to the respondents. The learned counsel contends that during the proceedings in the High Court an offer was made to the respondents to take a special oath as to the veracity of their allegations, but they declined to do so. Finally, Mr. Akhtar All submits that, in any case, the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature and the criminal complaints initiated by the respondents amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
5. We find that the submissions made by the learned counsel in support of these petitions raise disputed questions of fact, which can only be decided after recording evidence. The issuance of the cheques is apparently not controverted by the petitioner, although he contends that the cheques were given to one Bakht Ali who had mysteriously passed them on to the respondents.
6. These mysterious circumstances would obviously require investigation by the trial Court. The circumstances in which the cheques came to be dishonoured also need to be ascertained for the purpose of determining whether there was any criminal intention on the part of the petitioner or whether the dispute between the parties is, indeed, primarily of a civil nature. In the circumstances, the learned Judge in the High Court seems to us to be right in refusing to quash the proceedings.
7. He rightly declined to go into these disputed questions of fact which can only be determined by the appropriate Court.
8. ' Both the petitions, therefore, fail and are hereby dismissed.
Cited by 19 cases
- Hameedullah Rind Versus State 2026 YLR 1686
- Mst. Sahib Khatoon Versus Province of Sindh through Secretary Home Department, Sindh, Karachi 2025 YLR 2385
- M. Rafique vs FIA through its Director General, Islamabad and others 2024 IHC 174
- Lady Doctor Getman Alla alias Aliya Wahab vs The State and others 2024 PHC 62
- Lady Doctor GETMAN ALLA alias ALIYA WAHAB Versus State 2026 PLD 23
- Muhammad Waseem and another vs The State and another 2022 LHC 5030
- Faisal Manzoor vs Ghulam Hussain and 03 others 2022 PSC (Crl.) 714
- Inayatullah and others vs Station House Officer, Fia Corporate Crime Circle, Islamabad and others 2022 P Cr. L J 638
- Shahroom Khan vs Justice of Peace/Sessions Judge, Muzaffarabad 2021 SC AJK 60
- Khurram Iftikhar and Others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Interior Division, Islamabad and Others 2022 PCRLJ 1665
- NASEEM KHAN vs BANARAS KHAN JADOON and 3 others 2019 P Cr. L J 154
- Mst. ROBINA and others vs DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER and others 2018 YLR 665
- Syed NASIR ABBAS And 2 Others vs Malik NOOR HUSSAIN And Another 1992 P Cr. L J 670
- MUHAMMAD FAROOQ And 2 Others vs THE STATE-- 1992 P Cr. L J 834
- RAEES AHMAD KHAN vs THE STATE 1991 PCr.LJ 1381
- AHMAD BIN SALEEM vs THE STATE and 3 others 1990 P Cr. L J 838
- ABSAR AHMAD SIDDIQUI And Another vs THE STATE And Another 1989 MLD 2644
- Mrs. SHAMSUNNISA BAKHTIAR and another vs THE STATE and others 1989 P Cr. L J 2451
- MIR MUHAMMAD And 2 Others vs THE STATE and another 1987 P Cr. L J 1497