ABDUL KARIM vs THE STATE AND ANOTHUR
This matter arises from criminal proceedings registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code against the petitioner, Abdul Karim, following a dispute over the supply of a cotton ginning and baling press financed through the Agricultural Bank of Pakistan. The High Court accepted the petitioner's application and quashed the criminal proceedings. However, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court aggrieved by certain observations made in the High Court judgment regarding the fabrication of agreements and civil liabilities concerning payments and machinery. The core legal question considered was whether unnecessary adverse observations made during the quashment of criminal proceedings prejudice a party in potential civil litigation. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that the contested observations were not necessary for the quashment of the case, possessed no binding effect, and would not prejudice independent civil proceedings. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that unnecessary observations made by a criminal court during quashment do not bind parties in subsequent civil litigation, which must be decided on its own merits and evidence.
- Do unnecessary observations made by a High Court in a criminal quashment order have a binding effect on subsequent civil proceedings?
- Can a petitioner seek leave to appeal against purely descriptive or unnecessary observations in a judgment where the ultimate relief of quashment was granted?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Therespondent NoNo. 2, with the Agricultural arrangement arrived Bank of Pakistan a sum of Rs. 3, lacs was paid to Abdul Karim petitioner through the said Bank. In pursuance of order No 944 dated 1-3-72 placed upon him fore cotton Ginning and Bailing Press. Abdul Karim, the supplier, was the proprietor Messrs Fahim Engineering Company Ltd. l Multan. The Bailing Press was to be supplied within three months. A pare of the machinery was supplied anal the other part was sold byUmar Hayat to some body else at a higher price. A case under section 406420, P. P. C. Was registered against Abdul Karim petitioner on 29-1-1973. The parts complained of were under orders of the Courts delivered on supardari to Umar Hayat. Karim filed a petition for quashment of tae challan which was put in Court by the P. D. S. P. On 2;4-11-7a. By its order dated 22-4-79 a learned Judge of the High Court accepted the petition and quashed. The criminal proceedings pending against Karim.
2. The petitioner has left aggrieved by the observations made in the judgment by the learned Judge of the High Court to the effect that the Agreements dated 18-:-73 (Annexure C) and 15-1-79 (Annexure 'E') had been fabricated by the petitioner and that the machinery which was taken on supardari by Umar Hayat was the balance of the contracted machinery and that respondent No. 2 was not liable to pay is 1,40,000, to him.
3. Leave to appeal is refused on the short ground that the aforemen--tioned observations made by the learned, judge were not necessary for the quashment of the case against Abdul Karim and have no binding effect upon the petitioner. Any civil proceedings which if instituted will be disposed of on their own merits on the basis of the evidence that may be led in such a case.
4. The petitioner asked for quashment which be got from the Court. This petition has no merits and is dismissed limine.