2011 PLP 1567 (YLR)

SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J.

Through the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 6-11-2010 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, in his capacity as Ex-officio Justice of the Peace has directed respondent No.1/S.H.O., Police Station, Sattukatla, Lahore, to record statement of respondent No.2 and proceed further as provided under section 154, Cr.P.C.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. in which the impugned order has been passed was not maintainable as the same was filed through special attorney. The learned counsel further contended that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2 is of civil nature and the cheques in disputes were issued by the petitioner as a result of an arbitration agreement and encashment of the same was subject to the condition of cancellation of sale-deed. Adds that the cheques in dispute were not issued with dishonest intention and the application of respondent No.2 did not disclose any offence cognizable by the police and by passing the impugned order, the learned Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace has committed a serious illegality and as such, the same is liable to be set aside.

3. Conversely, the Additional Advocate-General, Punjab as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.2 have opposed the instant petition, on the ground that institution of civil suit is no bar in the way of initiation of criminal proceedings as both can go side by side. Further contended that issuance of cheques, which were bounced by the Bank, constitutes an offence and respondent No.2 has a right to recover the said amount besides seeking initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner, who has issued the said cheques with dishonest intention. They further argued that information regarding commission of a cognizable can be laid before the machinery of law by any person, before whom any offence has been committed.

4. Arguments heard. Record perused.

5. There is no weight in the argument that application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. could not be filed by respondent No.2 through his special attorney. It is not requirement of law that complaint must be filed by the person who is victim of any offence. An information regarding commission of an offence can be laid before the police by any person, before whom such offence has been committed by any person. The petitioner has not denied issuance of the cheques, which have been dishonoured by the bank and act of the petitioner, prima facie, constitutes an offence falling under section 489-F, P.P.C. Filing of a suit for recovery of the amount of the dishnoured cheques is no bar against initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner under section 489-F, P.P.C., as civil and criminal proceedings can be initiated side by side. Even in the report submitted by the S.H.O. Police Station, Sattukatla, Lahore, which has been submitted in this Court, it has been stated that the present petitioner has committed fraud with respondent No.2. In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 6-11-2010. The instant petitions fails, and the same is accordingly, dismissed. H.B.T./A-95/L Petition dismissed.