⚖️ صرف لفظ "امانت" لکھنے سے دفعہ
406 PPC
کا جرم نہیں بنتا
سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان کا اہم فیصلہ
— 2026
SCMR 1379
🔹 معاملہ کیا تھا؟
شکایت کنندہ نے ایک مکان کو رہن رکھنے کے لیے 12 لاکھ روپے میں معاملہ طے کیا اور اس سلسلے میں 7 لاکھ روپے بطور ایڈوانس ادا کیے۔ فریقین کے درمیان مکان کے رہن کا تحریری معاہدہ بھی موجود تھا۔
بعد ازاں مکان کا قبضہ شکایت کنندہ کو نہ دیا گیا اور رقم بھی واپس نہ کی گئی۔ شکایت کنندہ نے رقم کو "امانت" قرار دیتے ہوئے ملزمان کے خلاف دفعہ 406 PPC کے تحت FIR درج کرا دی۔
🔹 سپریم کورٹ نے کیا قرار دیا؟
سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ معاملہ بنیادی طور پر جائیداد کے معاہدے کی تکمیل اور رقم کی واپسی سے متعلق ہے، اس لیے یہ زیادہ سے زیادہ ایک دیوانی نوعیت کا تنازع بنتا ہے۔
عدالت کے مطابق معاہدے پر عمل درآمد نہ ہونے کی صورت میں فریقین اپنے حقوق کے تعین کے لیے سول کورٹ سے رجوع کر سکتے ہیں۔
⚖️ صرف "امانت" کا لفظ کافی نہیں
سپریم کورٹ نے واضح کیا کہ
FIR
میں محض "امانت"
(
) کا لفظ لکھ دینے سے دفعہ 406
خود بخود لاگو نہیں ہو جاتی۔
دفعہ 405/406 کے تحت جرم ثابت ہونے کے لیے اس کے ضروری قانونی اجزاء کا موجود ہونا ضروری ہے۔ موجودہ معاملے میں عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ نہ تو کوئی ایسا ٹرسٹ قائم ہوا تھا اور نہ یہ واضح تھا کہ مذکورہ امانت کس طریقے سے واپس یا استعمال کی جانی تھی۔
🔹 تحریری پراپرٹی معاہدہ موجود تھا
عدالت نے اس بات کو بھی اہم قرار دیا کہ 7 لاکھ روپے ایک پراپرٹی ڈیل کے سلسلے میں ادا کیے گئے تھے اور مکان کے رہن کا تحریری معاہدہ بھی موجود تھا۔
لہٰذا اصل سوال یہ تھا کہ معاہدے پر عمل کس فریق نے نہیں کیا اور رقم کی واپسی یا معاہدے کی تکمیل کے حوالے سے کس کا دعویٰ درست ہے۔
یہ معاملہ فوجداری عدالت کے بجائے سول کورٹ میں طے کیا جانا تھا۔
⚖️ FIR کو Quash
کیوں کیا گیا؟
سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ موجودہ حقائق کی بنیاد پر ملزم کے خلاف فوجداری جرم بننے اور سزا ہونے کا کوئی امکان نہیں تھا۔
عدالت نے یہ بھی قرار دیا کہ ایسی صورت میں ملزم کو پہلے ٹرائل کورٹ میں
Section 249-A Cr.P.C.
کے تحت بریت کی درخواست دائر کرنے کا پابند کرنا قانونی عمل کا غیر ضروری استعمال ہوگا۔
🔹 Pre-Arrest Bail کو Quashing Petition میں تبدیل کر دیا گیا
ملزم نے ابتدا میں
Pre-Arrest Bail
کی درخواست دائر کی تھی، لیکن سپریم کورٹ نے ریکارڈ کا جائزہ لینے کے بعد قرار دیا کہ چونکہ بادی النظر میں کوئی فوجداری جرم بنتا ہی نہیں، اس لیے عدالت
Article 187 of the Constitution
کے تحت اس درخواست کو
FIR quashing
کی درخواست میں تبدیل کر سکتی ہے۔
چنانچہ سپریم کورٹ نے درخواست کو اپیل میں تبدیل کرتے ہوئے متعلقہ عدالتی احکامات ختم کر دیے اور
FIR No. 3299 dated 17.10.2025 under Section 406 PPC کو quash کر دیا۔
⚖️ اہم قانونی اصول
سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ:
🔹 صرف پرچہ میں لفظ "امانت" لکھنے سے دفعہ 406 کا جرم نہیں بنتا۔
🔹 دفعہ 406 کے اطلاق کے لیے کے ضروری اجزاء کا موجود ہونا ضروری ہے۔
🔹 پراپرٹی کے معاہدے کی تکمیل یا رقم کی واپسی کا تنازع، حالات کے مطابق، دیوانی نوعیت کا ہو سکتا ہے۔
🔹 جب ریکارڈ سے فوجداری جرم بنتا ہی نہ ہو تو عدالت مناسب صورت میں
FIR quash
کر سکتی ہے۔
📌 منفرد نکتہ
میں کسی لین دین کو "امانت" قرار دینا بذاتِ 406 کے اطلاق کے لیے کافی نہیں؛ عدالت اصل لین دین، معاہدے اور جرم کے قانونی اجزاء کو دیکھے گی۔
📚 حوالہ
Liaqat Ali v. The State through PG Punjab and another
2026 SCMR 1379
Criminal Appeal No. 10-L of 2026
فیصلہ: 28 جنوری 2026
#️⃣ Hashtags
#2026SCMR1379 #SupremeCourtOfPakistan #Section406PPC #CriminalBreachOfTrust #Amanat #FIRQuashed #CivilDispute #PropertyDispute #PreArrestBail #PakistanLaw
Must read judgment.
2026 SCMR 1379
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, JJ
LIAQAT ALI ---Petitioner
Versus
The STATE through PG Punjab and another ---Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 10-L of 2026, decided on 28th January, 2026.
(On appeal against the order dated 06.01.2026 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Cr. Misc. No. 74054-B of 2025).
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----S. 406---Criminal breach of trust---Amanat (trust)---Mere mention of word "Amanat" "Amanat" in FIR---Offence under Section 406, P.P.C. not attracted unless ingredients otherwise made out---Merely mentioning the word "Amanat" (trust) in the FIR does not attract the provisions of Section 406, P.P.C., if the offence is otherwise not made out in the case.
Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmad and 03 others 2000 SCMR 122; Muhammad Ali and another v. Assistant Commissioner, Narowal and. another 1987 SCMR 795; Shaukat Ali Sagar v. Station House Officer, Police station Batala Colony, Faisalabad and 5 others 2006 PCr.LJ 1900; Abdul Razzaq v. The State 1977 PCR.LJ 52 and Umair Aslam v. Station House Officer and 7 others 2014 PCr.LJ 1305 rel.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----Ss. 249-A & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 406---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 187---Criminal breach of trust---Pre-arrest bail---Bail petition converted into petition for quashing of FIR---Complete justice-Offence not made out-Accused was alleged to have misappropriated the amount given to him by complainant in trust (Amanat)---Authorities contended that if no offence was made out then accused should have first filed a petition before the Trial Court under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. for his acquittal-Validity... There was no probability of conviction of accused, therefore, asking him to first approach the Trial Court to move a petition under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. would amount to sheer abuse of process of law and the Court-Accused had sought pre-arrest bail but no criminal offence was made out against him, therefore, there was no har to convert the bail petition into a petition for quashing of FIR while exercising powers under Article 187 of the Constitution---Supreme Court converted the bail petition into a petition for quashing of FIR and quashed the same-Appeal was allowed..
Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmed and 3 others 2000 SCMR 122 and The State through D.G, ANF Rawalpindi v. Muhammad Saleem Khan. 2011 SCMR 863 rel.
Muhammad Nawaz Shah, Advocate Supreme Court along with Petitioner (Via video link from Lahore).
Mirza Abid Majeed, Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab and Ghafoor Ahmed, ASI for the State.
Assisted by: Ghulam Muhammad Adnan, Law Clerk.
Date of hearing: 28th January, 2026.
JUDGMENT
MALIK SHAHZAD AHMAD KHAN, J.---Through the instant petition, Liaqat Ali, petitioner, has assailed the order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, with the prayer to set aside the said order and grant pre-arrest bail to him in case registered vide FIR No. 3299 dated 17.10.2025 under Section 406, P.P.C. at Police Station Islampura, District Lahore.
-
Arguments heard. Record perused.
-
As per brief allegations levelled in the FIR, on 17.07.2025, the petitioner being a property dealer, showed a house to the complainant for mortgage, which house was owned by Mohsin Irfan (co-accused). The petitioner told the rate of the house for mortgage as Rs.12,00,000/-. The petitioner and Mohsin Irfan (co-accused) received an amount of Rs.700,000/- from the complainant as an advance for the mortgage of the house. However, the accused persons did not give possession of the house to the complainant on the pretext that the paint work of the house was still to be completed and told the complainant that his amount was lying with them as a trust (Amanat). A period of two months elapsed but the petitioner and his co-accused neither returned the amount to the complainant nor gave possession of the house to him, hence, the FIR of this case.
-
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that ingredients of offence under section 406, P.P.C. are not attracted in this case and the Police in connivance with the complainant has malafidely lodged the FIR in a case of civil nature and the same is liable to be quashed instead of granting pre-arrest hail to the petitioner.
-
Learned Law Officer has vehemently opposed the above argument.
-
After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Law Officer, we are of the view that it is a fit case
for quashment of FIR due to the reasons detailed below.
- It is evident from the hare perusal of the contents of the FIR that an amount of Rs.700,000/- was statedly paid by the complainant to the petitioner and owner of the property namely Mohsin Irfan (co-accused). A written agreement for mortgage of the property was also executed in this respect between the parties. The petitioner was a property dealer, who introduced the complainant to the above-mentioned owner of the house. Later on, the petitioner and owner of the house refused to act upon the above-mentioned written agreement of mortgage of property. It is, therefore, evident that the amount in question was given in a property deal and at the most it was a case of civil nature regarding specific performance of the above-mentioned agreement of mortgage. There is no allegation that Mohsin Irfan (co-accused) was not the owner of the house for which he executed a mortgage agreement with the complainant. As per contents of the FIR, a total amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- was settled between the parties for the mortgage of the house in question and an amount of Rs.700,000/- was paid as advance by the complainant to the accused sed whereas an amount of Rs.500,000/-was still outstanding against the complainant. It is claim of the petitioner that infact the complainant breached the terms and conditions of the above-referred written agreement of mortgage by not paying the remaining amount of Rs.500,000/- to the owner of the house within the period agreed between the parties, whereas, according to the learned Law Officer the complainant was ready to perform his part of the agreement by paying the remaining amount. Without commenting upon the merits and demerits of the above-mentioned respective claims of the parties, it is evident from the admitted facts of this case that the proper forum for the decision of the dispute of the parties is the civil court, where it will be determined that which party to the agreement was not specifically performing his/their part of the agreement. The ingredients of offence as envisaged under Section 405, P.P.C. punishable under section 406, P.P.C. are not attracted in this case because neither any trust was created nor it was specified that in which manner the said trust was to be discharged. Although learned Additional Prosecutor General has argued that the word Amanat (trust) has specifically been mentioned by the complainant in in the contents of the FIR, therefore, the offence mentioned in the FIR is very much attracted in this. case but it is by now well settled that by merely mentioning the word Amanat (trust) in the FIR, would not attract the provisions of offence under section 406, P.P.C., if the same are not otherwise attracted in a case. Reference in this context may be made to the judgments reported as "Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmad and 03 others" (2000 SCMR 122). Further reference may be made to the judgments reported as "Muhammad Ali and another v. Assistant Commissioner, Narowal and another" (1987 SCMR 795), "Shaukat Ali Sagar v. Station House Officer, Police Station Batala Colony, Faisalabad and 5 others" (2006 PCr.LJ 1900), "Abdul Razzaq v. The State" (1977 PCr.LJ 52) and "Umair Aslam v. Station House Officer and 7 others" (2014 PCr.L] 1305).
In the case of Abdul Razzaq supra, the FIR under Sections 406/420, P.P.C. was quashed where the allegation was that the complainant pledged his jewelry with the accused jewelers against a loan amount but inspite of of rep repayment of the loan amount, the pledged jewelry was not returned to him. The FIR in the said case was quashed on the ground that the transaction between the parties was based on a contractual liability, therefore, only the civil court could be the proper forum for settling of the dispute between the parties.
Likewise in the case of Muhammad Ali ibid, the allegation against the accused was that he received an amount of Rs.11,200/from the complainant with the promise to give him contract for running a cinema canteen but the accused neither gave the contract to the complainant for running the cinema canteen nor he returned the above-mentioned amount, therefore, the FIR under Sections 406 and 420, P.P.C. was registered against the accused. This Court quashed the FIR of the said case mainly on the ground that the dispute between the parties was of civil nature (of the performance of contract).
Similarly, in paragraph No. 5 of the judgment in the case of Umair Aslam supra, the allegations levelled by the complainant in the contents of the FIR were reproduced as under-
The FIR of the said case was also quashed on the ground that the amount of Rs.16,00,000/- mentioned in the FIR was given in the backdrop of a property deal and according to the prosecution case the accused were not ready for execution of the sale deed. It was held in the said indement that ahove dispute was only to be decided hu civil court through
In the case of Abdul Razzaq supra, the FIR under Sections 406/420, P.P.C. was quashed where the allegation was that the complainant pledged his jewelry with the accused jewelers against a loan amount but inspite of repayment of the loan amount, the pledged jewelry was not returned to him. The FIR in the said case was quashed on the ground that the transaction between the parties was based on a contractual liability, therefore, only the civil court could be the proper forum for settling of the dispute between the parties.
Likewise in the case of Muhammad Ali ibid, the allegation against the accused was that he received an amount of Rs.11,200/-
from the complainant with the promise to give him contract for running a cinema canteen but the accused neither gave the contract to
the complainant for running the cinema canteen nor he returned the above-mentioned amount, therefore, the FIR under Sections 406 and 420, P.P.C. was registered against the accused. This Court quashed the FIR of the said case mainly on the ground that the dispute between the parties was of civil nature (of the performance of contract).
Similarly, in paragraph No. 5 of the judgment in the case of Umair Aslam supra, the allegations levelled by the complainant in the contents of the FIR were reproduced as under:-
The FIR of the said case was also quashed on the ground that the amount of Rs.16,00,000/- mentioned in the FIR was given in the backdrop of a property deal and according to the prosecution case the accused were not ready for execution of the sale deed. It was held in the said judgment that the above dispute was only to be decided by the civil court through a suit for specific performance of contract against the accused. It was further observed that the criminal proceedings on the basis of the amount mentioned in the FIR were sheer abuse of process of law, which cannot be allowed. Consequently, the FIR under Sections 406/420, P.P.C. was quashed.
-
As mentioned earlier, it is evident from the perusal of the contents of the FIR that at the most it was a case of civil nature regarding the recovery of cash amount which was allegedly given by the complainant to the accused or for specific performance of written agreement of mortgage executed between the parties but in order to blackmail and pressurize the petitioner and his co-accused, machinery of law has mala fidely been set into motion by the complainant while converting the civil dispute into a criminal offence.
-
It has next been argued by learned Additional Prosecutor General that the petitioner may be directed to first file a petition under Section 249-A Cr.P.C, before the learned trial Court but it is noteworthy that from the facts of the present case, there is no probability of conviction of the petitioner, therefore, therefore, asking asking the petitioner to to first first approach approach the the learned lear trial Court to move a petition under Section 249-A Cr.P.C, shall amount to sheer abuse of the process of law and the Court. Reference in this context may be made to the judgment reported as "Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmed and 3 others" (2000 SCMR 122) wherein this Court approved the quashment of the FIR under Section 406, P.P.C. by the High Court under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., in a similar situation, without filing of any petition by the accused under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court.
-
It is true that through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest hail but after perusal of the record, we are of the view that no criminal offence is made out against the accused, therefore, there is no bar to convert the instant petition into a petition for quashment of FIR as observed in the judgment reported as "The State through D.G, ANF Rawalpindi v. Muhammad Saleem Khan" (2011) SCMR 863).
-
Consequently, while exercising the powers under Article 187 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, this petition is converted into an appeal and allowed in the manner that the impugned order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the learned High Court and the order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, respectively, are hereby set aside and FIR No.3299 dated 17.10.2025 registered under Section 406, P.P.C. at Police Station Islampura, District Lahore, is hereby quashed. MH/L-1/SC
Case quashed.