Muhammad Rafaqat Yousaf vs The State, etc
This petition for pre-arrest bail arose from FIR No. 566/2018, registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, concerning the alleged dishonour of a cheque valued at Rs. 3,700,000. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given that a significant portion of the cheque amount had already been paid to the complainant prior to the cheque's presentation. The Court observed that the complainant had admitted receiving Rs. 1,000,000 before presenting the cheque for the full original amount. The Court held that presenting a cheque for its full face value after receiving partial payment prima facie demonstrated mala fide intent on the part of the complainant. Furthermore, the Court noted that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that the petitioner had joined the investigation. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, ruling that incarceration would serve no useful purpose and that the complainant's proper remedy for the remaining balance was a civil recovery suit.
- Does the presentation of a cheque for its full face value after receiving partial payment constitute prima facie evidence of mala fide intent?
- Is an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, considered to fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- When a partial payment has been made on a debt, is the appropriate remedy for the creditor to present the original cheque for encashment or to file a civil suit for recovery?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Through this petition, Muhammad Rafaqat Yousaf petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.566/2018 dated 15.05.2018, registered for offence under Section 489-F of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Islampura, District Lahore.
2. Succinctly , the allegation against the petitioner is that he issued a cheque valuing Rs.37,00,000/- to the complainant which, on presentation, was dishonoured due to paucity of funds.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant does not contest the argument furnished by learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that out of the amount of Rs.37,00,000/-, subject matter of the cheque in issue, the complainant has already receiv ed Rs.10,00,000/- on 29.12.2017 which transpires that after 29.12.2017 Rs.37,00,000/- were not the financial obligation of the petitioner but even then the complainant presented the cheque amounting to Rs.37,00,000/- for encashment to the bank concerned which stands returned on 27.03.2018.
In the abovementioned circumstances, if the petitioner has not paid the remaining amount to the complainant, he is having the remedy to file a suit against the petitioner for recovery of that amount. After the admitted partial payment out of the total amount, mentioned in the subject cheque, the complainant should not have presented the same for encashment but he did so which prima-facie, reflects mala fide on his part. The petitioner has already joined the investigation while offence alleged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. For all mentioned above, sending him behind the bars is neither likely to serve any useful purpose nor seems justified. Hence, this petition is allowed and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 05.10.2018 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/-, with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- Kim Seon Bae vs The State and 2 others 2021 YLR 114