IKRAMULLAH KHAN and another vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and another
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed an application for the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated via a private complaint. The petitioners were accused of cheating under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specifically for allegedly extorting money under the false pretense of securing employment abroad. The core legal question was whether a private complaint was maintainable when an earlier First Information Report (F.I.R.) involving similar allegations against one of the petitioners and a third party was already pending trial. The Supreme Court held that the existence of a prior F.I.R. did not constitute a legal bar to the filing of a subsequent private complaint, particularly where the complainant explained that the initial delay in naming the current petitioners was due to their influential positions and attempts at negotiation. The Court affirmed that the private complaint disclosed a prima facie case, justifying the dismissal of the quashment application. The key principle laid down is that a private complaint is not inherently incompetent merely because a prior F.I.R. regarding similar allegations is pending, provided the complaint establishes a prima facie case.
- Is a private complaint legally barred if an earlier First Information Report regarding similar allegations is already pending trial?
- Does the existence of a pending criminal case against one accused preclude the filing of a private complaint against additional accused persons for the same transaction?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- This petition by Ikramullah and Ayaz Ahmad is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 9-2-1983, dismissing their application for quashment of Criminal proceedings under section 420, P.P.C. Initiated on a private complaint filed against them by Muhammad Yousaf on 9-11-1980 and pending in the Court of a Magistrate at Lahore.
2. The allegations against them, briefly, are that they had opened an Employment Agency and were in a position to secure jobs for labour in the Middle East and send them abroad on payment of Rs,12,000 each and thus they extorted a sum of Rs,1,80,000 for securing employments for 15 persons, but the accused/petitioners, could not do the needful.
3. Petitioners' counsel submitted that earlier on 16-6-1979, Yousaf complainant had lodged an F.I.R.
Against Ikramullah and one Abdul Ghafar, making similar allegations and a case was, therefore, registered which is still pending trial in the Court. Therefore, the private complaint against the petitioners on the same allegations is not competent, specially against Ayaz Ahmad whose name was not mentioned by the complainant in the F.I.R.
' The petitioner's counsel argued that the case against the petitioners, on these facts, is not likely to result in their conviction.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent, however pointed out that the F.I.R. Was only against Ghafar, a relative of Ikramullah petitioner whom he had been paying money separately for getting certain people employed in the Middle East. He did not lodge the F.I.R.
Against the present petitioners earlier because considering them to be persons of some position, (Ikramullah being a retired Major of the Pakistan Army, and Ayaz Ahmad being a D.S.P. In the F.I.A.), he thought that he could get the money returned through persuation and negotiations.
5. We have gone through the impugned order in the light of the above-mentioned facts and feel that in the circumstances pointed out by the respondent's counsel there is no bar to filing of the private complaint against the petitioners, the learned Judge in Chamber was A justified in the rejecting the petitioners quashment application as the private complaint disclosed a prima facie case against them. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as being without merit.