2013 PLP 738 (CLD)
ABDUL RAUF CHAUDHRY and 2 others — Appellants Versus The STATE and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 738 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Islamabad |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL RAUF CHAUDHRY and 2 others — Appellants Versus The STATE and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 738 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 738 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Islamabad bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 738 (CLD) (ABDUL RAUF CHAUDHRY and 2 others — Appellants Versus The STATE and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 7(4)
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 154
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.408, 410, 419, 468 & 471
Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3
Offence committed under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
Registration of F.I.R for such offence
"Registration of F.I.R." and "taking of cognizance"
Plea was that only Banking Court could take cognizance of an offence under the said Ordinance on a complaint in writing made by a person authorized by the Bank, therefore, registration of F.I.R. by the complainant was without jurisdiction
Registration of F.I.R. and taking of cognizance were two distinct and independent concepts under criminal law
No clog or implied prohibition on registration of F.I.R. had been provided specifically
Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI, J.
The instant Intra-Court Appeal is directed against order dated 21-12-2012 passed by learned Single Judge in Chamber by virtue of which writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed.
2. The facts giving rise to the present ICA, are that respondent No.3 lodged F.I.R. No.61, dated 10-2-2012 under sections 408, 419, 410, 468 and 471, P.P.C., Police Station Sabzi Mandi, Islamabad against petitioner No.1. Petitioner filed writ petition for quashment of the said F.I.R. but the writ was declined by learned Single Judge in Chamber.
3. Mainly it is contended that in view of sections 263 to 265 of Companies Ordinance, 1984, Registrar of the Companies having authority to take cognizance of the matter. Coupled with such plea, it is also contended that section 7(4) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, prescribed that only the Banking Court could take cognizance of offence under the Ordinance on a complaint in writing made by a person authorized by the Bank on that behalf. The respondents had to approach the competent authority under the Companies Ordinance, as such, lodging of F.I.R. is without jurisdiction.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. At the very outset, on a query raised by the Court, the learned counsel for the appellant failed to satisfy with regard to availability of any mode prescribed with respect to the taking of cognizance of an offence or implied prohibition regarding registration of F.I.R. Needless to say that the registration of F.I.R. and taking of cognizance of cases are two distinct and independent concepts under the criminal law. No clog on the registration of the F.I.R. has been provided specifically. Our view is supported by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding 2006 CLD 625.
6. The appellants have not been able to substantiate any ground before us, on account of which interference is required in the impugned order. We find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, which does not call for any interference in this Intra-Court Appeal. In view of the same, this appeal being devoid of merits, is dismissed in limine with all enlisted applications. MWA/53/ISL. Appeal dismissed.