Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of FIR Under Section 406 PPC in Loan Dispute.
 |
| 2025 scmr 1117 |
سپریم کورٹ کا اہم فیصلہ: قرض کے تنازع میں پرچہ کا اخراج درست قرار
کیس کا پس منظر
سپریم کورٹ کے اہم نکات
قانونی نکتہ: قرض اور امانت میں فرق
عدالت کا اصولی مؤقف
اہم نظائر (Case Law)
Must read judgement.
Case Judgement
http://www.plsbeta.com/LawOnline/law/content21.asp Catendee-202558664
2025 SCMR 1117
[Supreme Court of Pakistan)
FIR U/S 406 PPC Discharge
Present: Sardar Tariq Masood and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, JJ
AYESHA TAYYAB-Petitioner
Versus
STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION CANTT. DISTRICT SIALKOT and others -Respondents
Civil Petition No. 1575 of 2024, decided on 22nd May, 2025.
(On appeal against the order dated 08.03.2024 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 1684 of 2024).
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
S. 154-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 406-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199.-Criminal breach of trust---Quashing of FIR---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court-Scope--Allegations against the accused-respondents were that they dishonestly misappropriated an amount of Rs. 40 lac obtained by them from petitioner as loan---Petitioner lodged FIR under S. 406 P.P.C-High Court quashed the said FIR in its writ jurisdiction-Validity---Loan did not qualify as an entrustment-Where entrustment was made a fiduciary relationship arose between the giver and recipient, and the specific property entrusted was expected to be returned in its original form to the giver-However, such elements were absent in a loan where the relationship between the lender and borrower was purely contractual and there was no expectation of return of the same exact property, but rather something of the same value was returned-Even otherwise, there was a gross contradiction in the contents of the FIR, wherein it was first claimed that the amount was given as a loan but then it was alleged that the property was given as a trust--Thus, it appeared that the term 'Amanat' had been employed merely as a tool to attract the application of S. 406 P.P.C. and to secure the registration of FIR against the respondents---Additionally, no documentary evidence was available on the record which proved or showed that the petitioner gave the amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- (rupees forty lac only) to the respondents and the same had been noted by the High Court-Necessary implication of such legal interpretation, factual inconsistencies in FIR and non-availability of any documentary proof was that the offence punishable under S. 406 P.P.C was not made out from the contents of the quashed FIR---Thus, the decision of High Court to quash the FIR was in accordance with law---Consequently, leave to appeal was declined and petition was dismissed accordingly.
DG Anti-Corruption, Establishment Lahore v. Muhammad Akram Khan and others PLD 2013 SC
401 and Muhammad Ali v. Samina Qasim Tarar 2022 SCMR 2001 ref.
Shahnaz Begum v. High Court of Sindh and Baluchistan PLD 1971 SC 677; The State v. Asif Ali Zardari and another 1994 SCMR 798); Muhammad Khalid Mukhtar v. The State PLD 1997 SC 275; Dr. Sher Afgan Khan Niazi v. Ali S. Habib and others 2011 SCMR 1813; FIA, Director General FIA and others v. Syed Hamid Ali Shah and others PLD 2023 SC 265; Ajmeel Khan v. Abdul Rahim and others PLD 2009 SC 102; The State through Prosecutor General Punjab, Lahore v. Chaudhry Mohammad Khan and others PLD 2025 SC 254; Zahid Jameel v. S.H.O. and 2 others 2008 YLR 2695; Shahid Imran v. The State and others 2011 SCMR 1614; Muhammad Ali v. Samina Qasim Tarar and others 2022 SCMR 2001; Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmed and 3 others 2000 SCMR 122; Imtiaz Ali v. Bismillah Khan and another 1974 PCr.LJ Note 22 and DG Anti-Corruption, Establishment Lahore v. Muhammad Akram Khan and others