FIR Registration and Taking Cognizance are two different things

PLJ 2013 Islamabad 200 (DB)

Present: Riaz Ahmad Khan and Noor-ul-Haq N. Qureshi, JJ.

ABDUL RAUF CHAUDHRY and 2 others--Appellants

versus

STATE and 2 others--Respondents

Intra Court Appeal No. 14 of 2013, heard on 21.2.2013.

Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 (XII of 1972)--

----S. 3--Companies Ordinance, (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 263 to 265--Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, (XLVI of 2001), S. 7(4)--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Quashing of FIR, refusal of--Intra Court Appeal--Registrar of companies having authority to take cognizance of matter--Appellant had failed to satisfy with regard to availability of any mode prescribed with respect to taking of cognizance of an offence--Registration of FIR and taking of cognizance of cases are two distinct and independent concepts under criminal law--No clog on registration of FIR had been provided specifically--I.C.A. was dismissed.      [P. 201] A

Syed Javed Akbar, Advocate for Appellants.

Date of hearing: 21.2.2013.

Judgment

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 fact giving rise to the present ICA, are that Respondent No. 3 lodged FIR No. 61, dated 10.02.2012 under Sections 402, 419, 410, 468   and   471,   PPC,  Police  Station   Sabzi  Mandi,  Islamabad  against  Petitioner No. 1. Petitioner filed writ petition for quashment of the said FIR 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 Institution (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 FIR 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 FIR. Needless to say that the registration of FIR and taking of cognizance of cases are two distinct and independent concepts under the criminal law. No clog on the registration of the FIR has been provided specifically. Our view is supported by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding Civil Petition No. 356-L of 2005.

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.

(R.A.)  Appeal dismissed