Case Law 489-F, PPC

CASE LAWS ON SECTION 489-F PPC
2005

1. 2007 P cr LJ 1492:
S.497 (5) Petition for cancellation of bail. (Bail cancels).
Bail granting order proceeded on mere technicalities and was conspicuous for the absence of any mention of respondent’s / accuser’s undertaking. Bail granted by Trial court offence under section 489-F P.P.C. did not attract the prohibitory clause of Sec 497(1) Cr P c ,but mere fact that the Prohibitory clause was not attracted, accused would not ipso facto become entitled to grant of bail.

2. 2007 P cr LJ 1064:
S.498 Petition for Pre-arrest bail (confirmed)
Offence under section 489-F PPC ,though was non-bailable ,but High Court could not ignore the fact that the offence did not fall within the ambit of Prohibitory clause of Sec 497 Cr PC , and in the absence of exceptional circumstances.

3. 2007 P cr LJ 997:
Quashing of F.I.R. (Dismissed).
Most important ingredient of offence under section 489-F PPC . being issuance of a Cheque dishonestly, and was bounced by the bank.
Plea of the petitioner is that .during the pendency of Civil suit, Criminal proceedings could not be initiated.

4. 2007 P cr LJ 388:
497(5) &498 Cr P C . Cancellation of bail .(Petition Accepted).
Petition to the extent of co-accused was dismissed because no role was attributed to the co-accused in the F.I.R. and investigation, Prosecutions whole evidence revolves around the accused who was main culprit. So the petition is accepted to the extent of main accused.

5. 2007 YLR 1264 :
S 497 Cr P C. (Admitted Post Arrest Bail)
F.I.R. Lodged with delay of four years against accused and co-accused .Complainant alleged in F.I.R that despite payment of amount to accused, no land was got allotted in his favour .and matter was reported to Punchayat accused gave to complainant cheques which were later on dishonored .That complainant himself was involved in case registered under Sec 489-F PPC .Sec 468,470, and 420 PPC had been added later. Pre-arrest bail of co-accused had been confirmed by High Court. Rule of consistency was attracted to the case of accused and admitted post arrest bail.

6. 2007 YLR 1277:
Sec 497 Cr P C (Bail admitted)
The amount of Cheque in question had not been mentioned in the F.I.R. at all. Cheque was issued about three months prior to reporting of matter to the police. Neither Cheque issued by accused nor its attested copy was available on record of the case and no Bank officer had been cited as witness.

7. 2007 YLR 1280:
Sec.497 Cr P C. (Bail granted)
Section 489-F PPC, Maximum punishment for offence under section 489-F PPC, not more than three years, Present case was not covered by prohibition contained in section 497 Cr PC. F.I.R. did not indicate the purpose for which a huge amount was given to accused by the complainant and did not show any effort for seeking the return of said amount.

8. 2007 YLR 1120.
Section 497 Cr P C. (Bail Granted ).
Section 489-F . Maximum Punishment not more than three years. Not fall in Prohibitory Clause of 497 Cr P C . F.I.R. did not indicate the purpose for which a huge amount was given to accused by the complainant and did not show any effort for seeking the return of said amount.

9. 2007 YLR 1354.
Section 497 Cr P C. (Bail Granted).
Section 489-F. Accused was in Jail since one year. Challan was submitted but no progress. Offence did not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr P C. ( Keeping accused behind the bars for an indefinite period of time would not serve or advance prosecution’s case, rather same would amount to punishment before conviction, which was not permissible under CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE ).




10. 2007 YLR 1020 (1) :
Section 498 Cr.P.C. ( Pre arrest bail was dismissed)
Section 489-F. Accused failed to appear before the court and had also not furnished surety bonds as directed by the court. Accused who stood nominated in F.I.R, had misused concession of Pre-arrest bail.Bail application was dismissed.

11.PLD 2006 Lah 752 (a) :
Purpose of 489-F was to curb the fraudulent or dishonest issuance of cheques to cause dishonest gain or to cause dishonest loss, before approaching the investigation agency or launching a Criminal Prosecution the payee could give a notice to the drawer after dishonor of cheque.

10. 2006 MLD 1184(b) :
High Court holding that civil suit and criminal proceedings were two different remedies provided by law having different consequences as in commission of an offence.
Exercise of right of filing of suit could not create any hindrance in way of lodging F.I.R. Under Section 489-F P.P.C.

11. 2006 P Cr L J.157, 2005 P Cr L J.684 , 2005 YLR 1565 :
Petitioner in his application filed under section 22-A Cr PC . for registration of case for offence under section 489-F PPC, against the person who issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner and was bounced. But the Additional Session Judge dismissed his application on ground that which had introduced offence under Section 489-F PPC had died its natural death, and honorable High Court set aside the order of Additional Session Judge.

12. 2006 YLR 1826 :
Section 489-F. No retrospective effect of this section, and accused could not have been tried for the offence under Sec. 489-F PPC.

13. PLD 2006 Lah 434(a):
Section 489-F. Provision of section489-F, Cr.P.C. is a valid and living law. (2005 P.Cr.L.J 1462).(Shabbar Raza Rizvi ).


14. 2006 YLR 1852 (b):
Section 489-F would only be relevant where in respect of a loan or non-fulfillment of an obligation. The cheque was issued and got dishonored the way mentioned under said section.

15. 2006 P.Cr.L.J. 187(a):
Quashing of F.I.R.
The cheque was issued before the section 489-F on the statute book. So no retrospective operation. F.I.R. Quashed.


17.PLD 2005 Lah 607 (b):
Rational behind the enactment of Sec.489-F PPC. Does not call for a mechanical action immediately when a cheque is returned by a banker, but it used only in the matter of payment of loan, business transactions, genuine disputes and contractual obligations may not constitute for the offence.

18.2005 SCMR 306:
Quashing of F.I.R.
Cheque was dishonored and complainant laughed an F.I.R. against the accused. Accused raised plea that the disputed entire amount was paid but from different account. F.I.R. was quashed.

19. 2005 P.Cr.L.J 144 :
Quashing of F.I.R.
Cheque was dishonored and complainant laughed an F.I.R against the accused but during investigation he had been found prima-facie innocent and F.I.R was quashed.

20.2006 P.Cr.L.J 522(a) :
Sec 497(2)
Sec 489-F. Bail Grant Of
Civil court was to determine as to whether the agreement in question was enforceable under the law or not—Cheque which was dishonored by the Bank on presentation had been issued by the first party as guarantee in favour of the second party---Second party was to recover the amount through the Court of law at the risk and cost of the first party---Case against accused, therefore, to all intents and purposes was of further inquiry within the meaning of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.—Offence under section 489-F P.P.C. did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1),Cr.P.C. and bail in such cases was a rule and refusal an exception—Accused being a lady was also entitled to grant of bail under first proviso to S.497,Cr.P.C,--Consideration for grant of bail before arrest and for grant of after arrest being altogether different, dismissal of the application of the accused for pre-arrest bail by the High Court earlier had no hearing on the merits of the present application for post-arrest bail---Accused was in jail for the last about two months--- Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances.

2007 P.Cr.L.J 100:
S.489-F-Bail. Grant of---
Accused issued a cheque as earnest money to complainant, which prima facie was not an obligation—Real intention of the parties with regard to the agreement would be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence—Offence for which accused was charged ,did not fall under prohibited clause of Sec.497,Cr.P.C.—Accused was behind the bars and no more required for further investigation—To keep accused behind the bars for an indefinite period would not serve any use full purpose--- Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

4). 2004 YLR 2675:
Sec.489-F P.P.C.
Bail Grant of.
Both accused and complainant were doing business with each other and issuance of some cheques could be in course of such business—even otherwise accused was not involved in a case falling within prohibitory clause of Sec.497. Cr.P.C. and grant of bail in such like cases was a rule and refusal was an exception and no exceptional circumstances existed in case for refusal of bail to him--- Nothing was to be recovered from accused and he could not be kept in jail for indefinite period---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.