Petition for quashment

2016 PLD 637 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Scope

Quasi judicial power was one imposed on an officer or an authority involving the exercise of discretion, judicial in its nature, in connection with, and as incidental to, the administration of matters assigned or entrusted to such officer or authority

Quasi-judicial power was not necessarily judicial, but one in the discharge of which there was an element of judgment and discretion; more specifically, a power conferred or imposed on an officer or an authority involving the exercise of discretion, and as incidental to the administration of matters assigned or entrusted to such officer or authority

Quasi-judicial powers could not be delegated and were to be exercised by the persona designata mentioned in the statute

Such powers, functions or duties could neither be delegated to any other person or authority nor could be exercised on the recommendation of any other authority or person.

2016 PCrLJN 53 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 22-A, 22-B & 561-APenal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 100, 457, 458, 380, 397 & 511Right of private defence, lurking house-trespass, theft, robbery or dacoity, attempt to commit offencePetition for quashment

Petitioner was complainant of FIR registered against two persons for entering his house along with deceased who attempted to commit theft

Respondent was mother of deceased, who was killed by petitioner in exercise of his right of self-defence, filed application for registration of case against petitioner but the application was dismissed by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace

On application of mother of deceased Trial Court directed Investigating Officer to submit a fresh investigation report putting the name of petitioner in the column of accused persons

Validity

Ex-Officio Justice of Peace had erred in law while refusing registration of FIR on the application under S. 22-A, Cr.P.C., of mother of deceased against complainant and two accused facing trial for committing murder of her son

High Court directed registration of separate FIR against complainant of the case pending trial and two accused persons facing the trial, on the application of mother of deceased

Complainant of the case, in the FIR to be registered, could take plea of self-defence in the capacity of accused

High Court quashed the orders passed by Trial Court as well as Ex-Officio Justice of Peace and accepted the application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C., filed by mother of deceased

High Court directed Station House Officer to register a separate FIR against persons nominated in the application filed by the petitioner and investigate both the cases independently

Petition was allowed accordingly.

2016 CLD 906 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.7, 10, 11 & 20Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), Ss.3, 4 & 6Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 406, 420, 468, 471 & 109Suit for recovery of bank loanAllegation of misappropriation of hypothecated stock by customerRegistration of FIR by the BankPetition for quashmentScopeCustomer (petitioners) filed leave to defend suit denying claim of BankPending said suit, Bank had registered FIR under Ss.406, 420, 468, 471 & 109, P.P.C.

Contentions of the petitioners was that offences alleged in the impugned FIR squarely fell under S.20(1) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, of which only Banking Court could take cognizance and hold trial against the petitioners, after a complaint in writing was made in that regard; that impugned FIR registered under the Penal Code was completely without jurisdiction

Contention of respondent Bank was that petitioners had committed acts punishable under P.P.C., which were Scheduled offences in terms of Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, and were triable by the Special Court for offences in respect of Banks; that S.20(1) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, did not envisage any bar on an action which was taken by the aggrieved party (Bank) against accused under any other penal laws, either in addition to it or independent of it

Validity

Words "without prejudice to any other action which could be taken against him under this Ordinance, or any other law for the time being in force" occurring in S.20 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, amply established that registration of FIR in case of commission of cognizable offence by a person, was not barred altogether

Mode of taking cognizance by Banking Court under S.7 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, was a separate and independent concept under criminal law, which could not overtake or equate the right of a person to register an FIR in the face of a cognizable offence

Impugned FIR had been lodged for offences which were cognizable in nature and were Scheduled offences according to provisions of Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984; and same were triable exclusively by Special Court, notwithstanding anything contained in the Penal Code

Impugned FIR, did not appear to be illegal or coram non judice

First Information Report in question was not alleged to have been lodged maliciously against the petitioners; or contained allegations which ex facie, were not tenable in the eyes of law; or registration of the same was abuse of process of law

In absence of any cogent and legal grounds; merely on the pleas taken by the petitioners, impugned FIR could not be quashed

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.