SEEMA FAREED and others vs THE STATE and another

' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Petitioners seek leave to appeal against Sindh High Court judgment, dated 26-9-2005 dismissing quashment petition brought by them in relation to F.I.R. No,84 of 2005 under sections 420, 406, 114, 109, 34 and 489-F, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Frere, Clifton Town, Karachi.

2. The dispute between the parties arose out of a building and development of lands contract. A joint account was maintained in the name of the Company to be operated by the petitioners- Directors as well as the respondent-complainant. After the development of land and booking of plots/flats seven crossed cheques in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 each were issued in the name of respondent, which, on presentation to the Bank were dishonoured. On representation, to the Bank, the respondent could not encash the amount of the cheques fraudulently issued and drawn by one of the Directors of the Company, who was deliberately not arrayed as co-petitioner before the High Court or before this Court.

3. Honourable Judge in the High Court, on minute examination of the record and assessment of the contentions raised before him, arrived at the conclusion that since the ingredients of offences alleged against the petitioners were, prima facie, made out, it would neither be just nor fair and proper to stifle the criminal proceedings at the initial stage. The High Court has also exhaustively and comprehensively dealt with the question of insertion of the provisions of section 489-F, P.P.C. In the Pakistan Penal Code through Ordinance LXXXV of 2002 promulgated on 25-10-2002 and its lapse after expiry of 20 days in terms of Article 89 of the Constitutional and expressed the view that, notwithstanding, the lapse of the repealing statute, the provisions of section 489-F would continue to remain on the statute book and be part thereof.

4. We have heard Khawaja Shamsul Islam, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners, who has reiterated the same arguments, which were advanced before the High Court. On careful scanning of the record and examination of the judgment in the light of principles of law laid down by this Court, we feel convinced that the approach of the High Court in the matter of quashment of proceedings is neither illegal nor suffers from any inherent legal infirmity or material irregularity.

Interpretation placed by Honourable Judge of the High Court on the provisions of the contract as well as the repealing statute does not suffer from any misconception of law or violation of the settled principles laid down by this Court. It is well-settled that, a criminal case must be allowed to proceed on its own merits and merely because civil proceedings relating to same transaction have been instituted it has never been considered to be a legal bar to the maintainability of criminal proceedings which can proceed concurrently because conviction for a criminal offence is altogether a different matter from the civil liability. While the spirit and purpose of criminal proceedings is to punish the offender for the commission of a crime the purpose behind the civil proceedings is to enforce civil rights arising out of contracts and in law both the proceedings can co-exist and proceed with simultaneously without any legal restriction.

5. In our considered opinion, no question of law of public importance has been raised in the facts and circumstances of the present petition, which is without any merit and does not warrant any interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction conferred by Article 185(3) of the Constitution.

6. Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.