2016 PLP 93 (YLRN)
HAJI MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus JUSTICE OF PEACE/ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 93 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi, J |
| Parties | HAJI MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus JUSTICE OF PEACE/ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 93 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 93 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 93 (YLRN) (HAJI MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus JUSTICE OF PEACE/ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Aqeel Akhtar Zaidi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 489-F
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.22-A, 22-B & 154
Respondent on request of the petitioner gave Rs.2,00,000 to the petitioner as loan, and in lieu thereof the petitioner issued a cheque of the same value in the name of respondent which was dishonoured on presentation to the concerned bank
On application by respondent under Ss.22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C., Justice of Peace ordered the SHO concerned to record the version of respondent under S.154, Cr.P.C., if commission of cognizable offence was made out
Petitioner, had assailed said order passed by Justice of Peace
When any information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence was provided to SHO, he was under legal obligation to proceed under S.154, Cr.P.C.
Averments made by the petitioner's Counsel regarding the factual aspects of the matter, if addressed, would amount to resolve the factual controversy, that could not be done by High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution
Regarding contention qua nature of loan i.e. "Qarz-e-Hasna", which was to be returned when possible/convenience, for the loanee, High Court observed that when the loanee of 'Qarz-e-Hasna' voluntarily and knowingly issued a cheque for a specific date; and even if the same was dis-honoured, it would constitute a cognizable offence in terms of S.489-F, P.P.C.
No illegality or infirmity existed in the impugned order requiring interference by High Court
Constitutional petition was dismissed being devoid of any merits, in circumstances. [Para. 5 of the judgment] ORDER SYED SHAHBAZ ALI RIZVI, J.
Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 28.07.2015 passed by respondent No.1 issuing direction to respondent No.2 to record the version of respondent No.3 under section 154, Cr.P.C. if commission of cognizable offence is made out.
2. Brief facts as narrated by respondent No.3 in his proposed crime report are that on 20.11.2014 at 05:00 p.m. on the request of petitioner, he (respondent No.3) gave Rs.2,00,000/-to the petitioner as loan/ and in lieu thereof the petitioner issued a cheque No.1372086 of the same value in the name of respondent No.3 which stood dishonoured on presentation to the concerned bank. Thereafter respondent No.3 filed an application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. before respondent No.1 who passed the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter-alia, contends that the impugned order has been obtained by respondent No.3 through concealment of real facts and misrepresentation; that in fact the cheque in question was issued as guarantee by the petitioner in the name of one Luqman who obtained loan from respondent No.3; that said Luqman had repaid the entire amount to respondent No.3 but he due to mala-fide did not return the cheque and obtained the impugned order; that the perusal of proposed crime report itself reflects that the amount was given to the petitioner as 'Qarz-e-Hasna' and that was to be returned according to the convenience of the petitioner and thus no criminal liability constitutes against the petitioner; that respondent No.1 passed the impugned order in a slipshod manner without considering the factual aspects of the matter in issue and finally craves for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.07.2015 passed by respondent No.1.
4. Heard. Record available on the file perused.
5. Perusal of application moved by respondent No.3 to respondent No.1 under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. reveals the commission of a cognizable offence by the present petitioner as he on 20.11.2014 voluntarily issued the cheque in question for repayment of loan for a specific date, i.e. 10.03.2015 that, on presentation was dishonoured by the concerned bank. Under the law, when any information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence is provided to a Station House Officer, he is under legal obligation to proceed under section 154, Cr.P.C. The averments made by the petitioner's learned counsel regarding the factual aspects of the matter, if addressed, would amount to resolve the factual controversy that cannot be done by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. So far as his contention qua nature of loan, i.e. 'Qarz-e-Hasna' which is to be returned when possible/convenient for the loanee, is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that when the loanee of 'Qarz-e-Hasna' voluntarily and knowingly issues a cheque for a specific date and even then if the same is dishonoured, it constitutes a cognizable offence in terms of section 489-F, P.P.C. In view of above discussion, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order requiring interference by this Court hence, the instant petition is dismissed in limine, being devoid of any merit. However, if a criminal case is registered at the instance of respondent No.3, the Investigation Officer shall bring on record all the evidence oral as well as documentary, if any, produced by the petitioner at appropriate stage of the investigation and shall proceed strictly in accordance with law. HBT/H-29/L Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SHAHBAZ ALI RIZVI, J.
Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 28.07.2015 passed by respondent No.1 issuing direction to respondent No.2 to record the version of respondent No.3 under section 154, Cr.P.C. if commission of cognizable offence is made out.
2. Brief facts as narrated by respondent No.3 in his proposed crime report are that on 20.11.2014 at 05:00 p.m. on the request of petitioner, he (respondent No.3) gave Rs.2,00,000/-to the petitioner as loan/ and in lieu thereof the petitioner issued a cheque No.1372086 of the same value in the name of respondent No.3 which stood dishonoured on presentation to the concerned bank. Thereafter respondent No.3 filed an application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. before respondent No.1 who passed the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter-alia, contends that the impugned order has been obtained by respondent No.3 through concealment of real facts and misrepresentation; that in fact the cheque in question was issued as guarantee by the petitioner in the name of one Luqman who obtained loan from respondent No.3; that said Luqman had repaid the entire amount to respondent No.3 but he due to mala-fide did not return the cheque and obtained the impugned order; that the perusal of proposed crime report itself reflects that the amount was given to the petitioner as 'Qarz-e-Hasna' and that was to be returned according to the convenience of the petitioner and thus no criminal liability constitutes against the petitioner; that respondent No.1 passed the impugned order in a slipshod manner without considering the factual aspects of the matter in issue and finally craves for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.07.2015 passed by respondent No.1.
4. Heard. Record available on the file perused.
5. Perusal of application moved by respondent No.3 to respondent No.1 under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. reveals the commission of a cognizable offence by the present petitioner as he on 20.11.2014 voluntarily issued the cheque in question for repayment of loan for a specific date, i.e. 10.03.2015 that, on presentation was dishonoured by the concerned bank. Under the law, when any information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence is provided to a Station House Officer, he is under legal obligation to proceed under section 154, Cr.P.C. The averments made by the petitioner's learned counsel regarding the factual aspects of the matter, if addressed, would amount to resolve the factual controversy that cannot be done by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. So far as his contention qua nature of loan, i.e. 'Qarz-e-Hasna' which is to be returned when possible/convenient for the loanee, is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that when the loanee of 'Qarz-e-Hasna' voluntarily and knowingly issues a cheque for a specific date and even then if the same is dishonoured, it constitutes a cognizable offence in terms of section 489-F, P.P.C. In view of above discussion, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order requiring interference by this Court hence, the instant petition is dismissed in limine, being devoid of any merit. However, if a criminal case is registered at the instance of respondent No.3, the Investigation Officer shall bring on record all the evidence oral as well as documentary, if any, produced by the petitioner at appropriate stage of the investigation and shall proceed strictly in accordance with law. HBT/H-29/L Petition dismissed.