Dishonoring of cheques

Offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., as maximum punishment provided for the offence was 03 years

Grant of bail in such like cases is generally the rule and refusal is the exception, especially for offenses with a maximum punishment of 03 years

No evidence was available against the accused qua misusing of bail in previous cases

Bail could not be withheld merely on the ground of the involvement of a huge amount

Bail can be declined in offences, which do not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. when strong and exceptional grounds exist i.e. where the accused is habitual or has misused the concession of bail, which was not the position in the case of applicant

To err in granting bail is better than to err in declining it

Mere registration of other criminal cases without any conviction therein was not sufficient to deprive the applicant of the concession of bail

Enlargement of an accused on bail does not amount to his acquittal, rather, instead of being in jail, he is surrendered into the hands of sureties, who are responsible for his presence before the Trial Court

Applicant was admitted to post arrest bail, in circumstances.

Applicant had approached High Court directly for the reason that police in connivance with the complainant had cordoned off the Sessions Court

By not availing one remedy, applicant had lost one opportunity without causing any prejudice to the complainant party

Superior court can entertain the application for pre-arrest bail and grant relief to the accused in appropriate cases where the accused could inter alia establish that he was prevented from approaching the lower Court in the first instance

If the accused was entitled to bail under the law on merit, consequences could not be taken into consideration while entertaining the bail plea of the accused, if he had directly approached High Court under S.498, Cr.P.C.

Applicant had succeeded in making out the case for the confirmation of the pre-arrest bail

Bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioners were aggrieved of registration of FIR by respondents against dishonoring of cheques issued for business transactions between both the parties

Validity

Dishonoring of a cheque given either to fulfill an obligation or to repay a loan was cognizable offence under Second Sched. of Cr.P.C. and was punishable under S. 489-F, P.P.C.

If a person reported such matter to duty officer at a police station, he had no option but to lodge an FIR

Ensuing investigation would reveal all matters including validity of cheque, reason for giving cheque etc., which could be determined or the fact that whether or not cheque was given in fulfillment of a loan as alleged

High Court declined to quash FIR registered against petitioners as challan in FIR must have been filed

If petitioners were of the view that there was no material against them and they had been falsely implicated, they could file applications under S.249-A or 265-K Cr.P.C. before Trial Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, on application filed by complainant bank, directed police to record statement of complainant and proceed in accordance with law

Grievance of petitioner was that no criminal case could be registered against him

Validity

Jurisdiction was only with Banking Court established under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and not before any other court until and unless the same was provided by law, by which financial institution was established

If Legislature had any intention, it could have, at the very beginning formulate or afterwards could amend Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, in such a manner so as to bring the offence within definition of "cognizable" offence

When amendment was not made in Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, Legislators explicitly made their intention clear that with regard to matters between financial institutions and their customers, therefore, such enactment would hold the field and S.489-F, P.P.C. would be applicable to all other persons in general except those covered by Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Purpose by not amending Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, was that normally in any case of loan from financial institution, loans were protected by mortgage, warranties and covenants with regard to ownership, mortgage, pledge, hypothecation or assignment of or other charges on assets or properties and financial institution could recover the amount by adopting appropriate process under any of such modes

High Court set aside order passed by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace

Petition was allowed accordingly.