Gul Ahmed vs Ld CJ & JM & Ors
This criminal miscellaneous application challenges an order passed by the Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate-I (MCTC) Dadu, which disposed of a First Information Report (FIR) under 'C' Class. The applicant, who alleged that a loan extended to his brother-in-law was dishonoured via a bounced cheque issued by his wife, sought to set aside the magistrate's order and requested that the court take cognizance of the incident. The core legal question was whether the magistrate erred in disposing of the case under 'C' Class rather than proceeding with the prosecution. Upon review, the Court found that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of over one month, following unsuccessful proceedings under Section 22-A & B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that the dispute appeared to be a matrimonial conflict involving the misuse of a blank cheque. Consequently, the Court held that the magistrate had actually favoured the applicant by opting for 'C' Class disposal instead of 'B' Class, which would have exposed the applicant to prosecution for filing a false case. The application was dismissed.
- Whether a magistrate's order disposing of an FIR under 'C' Class is liable to be set aside when the underlying dispute appears to be a matrimonial conflict?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR justify the dismissal of a criminal miscellaneous application seeking to challenge the cancellation of that FIR?
- Is a complainant entitled to challenge a magistrate's decision to dispose of a case under 'C' Class when the alternative 'B' Class disposal would have exposed the complainant to prosecution for a false case?
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Irshad Ali Shah J. It is a case of the applicant he extended loan to his brother-in-law Muhammad Nawaz on assurance of his wife Mst. Rubina for having a business, it was returned to him to some extent by his wife Mst.
Rubina in shape of cheque, it was bounced by the concerned Bank when was presented for encashment, he, therefore, lodged an F.I.R of the above said incident with the police, it was recomm ended to be cancelled under 'B'
Class by police, however it was cancelled under 'C' Class by learned Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate-I (MCTC)
Dadu vide his order dated 19th September 2019, which is impugned by the applicant before this Court by way of instant criminal miscellaneous application under section 561-A Cr.P.C.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the case of the applicant was not liable to its disposal under any of the clause. By stating so, he sought for setting aside of impugned order with direction to learned Trial Magistrate to take cognizance of the incident.
In support of his contention, he has relied upon the case of Qazi Faisal Wajid Vs. Munir Ullah Khan and others (2013 P .Cr.LJ 400).
3. Learned Assistant Prosecutor General, for the State and learned counsel for the private respondents by supporting the impugned order have sought for dismissal of instant criminal miscellaneous application, by contending that the learned Trial Magistrate has already favoured the applicant by converting the disposal of case from 'B' to 'C' class.
4. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
5. The FIR of the incident has been lodged by the applicant with delay of about one month and thirteen (13) days that too after having a recourse under section 22-A&B, Cr.P.C such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. Loan was allegedly extended by the applicant to his brother-in-law Muhammad Nawaz, it was returned to some extent by his wife Mst. Rubina in shape of cheque which appears to be surprising. Mst.
Rubina it is said now has sought for dissolution of her marriage with the applican t and this is said to be a reason with the applicant to involve her and her brother in false cases by misusing the blank cheque. The case on proper investigation was rightly recommended by the police to be canceled under 'B' Class, if it would have been cancelled under 'B' Class then it would have entailed the prosecution for the applicant for initiating false case. In these circumstances, it is rightly being contended by learned APG for the State and learned counsel for the private respondents, that the applicant has been favoured by learned Trial Magistrate by disposing his case under 'C'
Class.
6. The law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is on distinguishable facts and circumsta nces. In that case the quashment of F.I.R was sought for. In the instant case no issue for quashment of F .I.R is involved.
7. No case for making interference with the impugned order , is made out, consequently , the instant criminal miscellaneous is dismissed.