MUHAMMAD DIN and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Din and Shabbir Ahmad, who were accused in a criminal case registered under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant alleged that the petitioners fraudulently entered into a sale agreement for land they did not own, received money, and failed to execute the sale deed. The petitioners contended that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, arising from a failure to complete a property transaction, and that the complainant was aware of the petitioners' status as developers rather than absolute owners. Upon reviewing the record, the Court found that the petitioners had not misrepresented their ownership status at the time of the agreement. The Court held that the criminal proceedings appeared to be an attempt to enforce a civil liability through the criminal justice system. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim bail, emphasizing that the essential elements of cheating and misrepresentation were not supported by the record.
- Does the failure to execute a sale deed for land constitute the offence of cheating under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can criminal proceedings be initiated to enforce a purely civil liability arising from a property sale agreement?
- Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation are not supported by the record?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Muhammad Din and Shabbir Ahmad have applied for bail before arrest in a case under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Kotwali, Faisalabad, vide F.I.R. No, 196 of 2001, dated 29-9-2001.
2. According to the F.I.R., the petitioners entered into a sale agreement with Muhammad Akbar Bajwa (complainant) on. 2-7-1997, whereby they agreed to sell 18 Marlas of land at the rate of Rs,70,000 per Marla and received a sum of Rs,1,30,000 and the petitioners have allegedly had undertaken to get the sale-deed registered on 14-2-1998 but on the due date, the accused failed to do so. The complainant alleged that the petitioners/accused were not owners of the land, subject- matter of the agreement and they had fraudulently received money and executed the agreement on 2-7-1997.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had entered into sale agreement with one Ahmed Saeed Khan on 12-6-1997 in regard to 13 Kanals and 12 Marlas of land which they developed into residential colony for onward form of residential plots and that this fact was not concealed from the complainant as such they have not defrauded the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant himself could not perform his part of agreement on or before 14- 2-1998. Consequently, the petitioners could not make payment to Ahmed Saeed Khan, the actual owner of the land and get the sale-deed registered.
4. I have considered the arguments and have perused the record. In the agreement, dated 12-1- 1997, arrived at between the parties, the petitioners did not make the complainant to believe that they were owners of the land. The ownership and their possession was under an agreement.
Therefore, the element of cheating and misrepresentation at the time of the execution of agreement, dated 2-1-1997 is not borne out from the record. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that an attempt has been made to enforce a civil liability through criminal procedure, is not without substance. I, therefore, accept this bail application and confirm the interim bail earlier granted.