Syed Husnain Haider vs The State and another
This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking leave to appeal against the refusal of pre-arrest/judicial protection by the Lahore High Court in a case involving dishonoured bank cheques. The petitioner was accused by a close relative of issuing two cheques amounting to rupees one crore forty-seven lac in discharge of a financial obligation arising from a botched land transaction, which subsequently bounced upon presentation. The core legal question pertained to whether criminal liability regarding dishonoured cheques could be avoided through a bald plea that the instruments were handed over as security and that a civil declaratory suit was pending. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to establish any contractual clause supporting the claim of being a surety, and that statutory presumptions regarding valid negotiable instruments cannot be easily warded off by unverified assertions. The Court ruled that in the absence of mala fide or animus behind the prosecution, criminal proceedings must take their normal course. Leave to appeal was accordingly declined.
- Can a drawer ward off the consequences of a dishonoured cheque through a bald plea of being an unsuspecting surety?
- Does the pendency of a civil declaratory suit relating to a family feud divert the usual course of criminal law regarding bounced cheques?
- Whether statutory presumptions attached to negotiable instruments can be displaced without concrete contractual proof?
ORDER
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.--- In a family breach, the petitioner has been blamed by the complainant, no other than a dose relative, to have issued him two bank cheques, to the tune of rupees one crore forty-seven lac, towards fulfillment of a financial obligation, arisen out of a botched sale transaction relating to some piece of land, bounced upon presentation; avoiding arrest for a considerable span of time, he has finally been declined judicial protection by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of Lahore High Court vide order dated 31.3.2021 to argue before us that in the absence of any subsisting 'financial obligation' he had handed over the cheques to his brother Syed Zulqarnain as security instrument for the settlement of family feud, fraudulently taken over by the complainant, cancellation whereof, is being pursued through a declaratory suit, sub judice in a Civil Court at Chunian till date, a position vehemently contested by the learned Law Of ficer with the assistance of counsel for the complainant.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. The impugned instruments admittedly belonged to the petitioner; these carry a wording on their back as "shorty", however , the learned counsel despite his best attempt has not been able to point out, even obliquely , any clause of contract/agreement or any portion thereof, in performance whereof, the petitioner purportedly stood surety .
Supported by statutory presumption of being a valid instrument, a drawer cannot ward off the consequences of its failure through bald plea of being an unsuspecting surety . Even otherwise, within the family fold in a close degree, the petitioner has not been able to point out any mala fide or animus, possibly lurking behind his long due arrest in a non bailable/cognizable offence, a sine qua non to divert the usual course of criminal law View concurrently taken by the courts below being well within the remit of law calls for no interference. Petition fails. Leave declined.