MANSOOR MUMTAZ KHILJI vs The STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding the alleged dishonour of a cheque. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the cheque and the complainant's inconsistent statements. Upon reviewing the record, the Court observed that the cheque was explicitly marked as a 'security cheque' on its reverse side. Furthermore, the Court noted significant contradictions in the complainant's stance, who initially alleged a business transaction but later claimed the petitioner was an employee and the cheque was for security purposes. The Court held that, prima facie, the cheque was not issued for the repayment of a loan or the fulfillment of an obligation, and that the prosecution's material suggested the case was initiated due to mala fide and ulterior motives. Additionally, the Court emphasized that criminal proceedings cannot be used to recover amounts under disputed cheques. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner.
- Can criminal proceedings under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be utilized for the recovery of an amount under a disputed cheque?
- Does the classification of a cheque as a 'security cheque' affect the maintainability of criminal proceedings under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is a petitioner entitled to pre-arrest bail when the complainant provides contradictory statements regarding the nature of the transaction involving the disputed cheque?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.---Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.390/2015 dated 22.06.2015 under section 489-F, P.P.C. Registered at police station Kotwali, District Faisalabad.
2. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Prosecutor General and on perusal of the record, it has been observed that:- i) On perusal of the original cheque, it has been observed that on its back, it is clearly mentioned that this is a security cheque; ii) In the FIR the complainant stated that there was a business transaction with the petitioner but when he appeared before the Investigating Officer on 178.11.2015(sic.) he stated that petitioner was his employee and the cheque was executed at the time of his service to protect the interest of the Firm and this fact is incorporated in case Diary No.17; iii) When both the above stances of the complainant are juxtaposed; in the light of later statement prima facie it cannot be said that the cheque was issued towards repayment of loan or fulfillment of any obligation; iv) On consideration of the material so far collected by the prosecution, prima facie, it appears that petitioner has been involved in this case due to mala Fide and ulterior motives of the complainant; v) Even otherwise, the original cheque is already with the prosecution, whereas, recovery of amount under the disputed cheque cannot be effected through criminal proceedings.
3. For what has been discussed above, respectfully placing reliance on the case "Mian Muhammad Akram v. The State and others" (2014 SCM R 1369) and "Mian Allah Dita v. The State and others" (2013 SCM R 51), this application is allowed and interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.
Cited by 2 cases
- Iqbal Azam Versus Muhammad Sher 2025 PCrLJ 668
- Muhammad Zahid vs The State and another 2022 YLR 2176