Mian ASIM FARID Versus INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN

ORDER

Further arguments heard.

2. Petitioners Mian Asim Farid and Ghulam Murtaza Bajwa through the instant petition have sought for quashing of F.I.R. No.770 dated 6-12-2003 under sections 379/406/420, P.P.C. registered with P.S. Saddar Kasur.

3. Briefly, the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant petition are that the said case has been registered on the written application of respondent No.4 Sultan Haider. He in the same has mentioned that respondent No.1/Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan had been set up in the year, 1961. The object of the same was to provide loan facility for establishment of industry in the country. M/s. Ali Abbas (Pvt.) Ltd. on 12-9-1992 , had obtained a loan of Rs.25,00,000 (Rupees twenty-five lacs) from the Bank. The firm executed documents in favour of the Bank in respect of the loan. According to the agreement of loan, the assets of the firm were pledged with the Bank. The firm was not authorized to sell or transfer the assets and violation of such term of the agreement is liable to penal action. The firm has shifted somewhere the machinery of the factory worth Rs.8,63,400 pledged with the Bank and so they are liable to penal action.

4. Quashing of the F.I.R. has been sought on the ground that the aforesaid criminal case could not be registered against the petitioner as according to section 7(4) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance No.XLVI of 2001, cognizance of an offence under the Ordinance can only be taken by a Banking Court and that too on the complaint in writing of a person authorized by the Bank in that behalf, while the instant case has been registered on the application of respondent No.4, which is illegal.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 4 has contended that the petitioners have removed the machinery pledged with respondent No.1/Bank and so the case could be registered on the application of respondent No.4, who is it s officer.

6. Learned Assistant Advocate-General, however, has submitted that the case against the petitioners could not be registered as cognizance of an offence under the Ordinance supra can only be taken on the report in written of an authorized officer of respondent No.1/Bank.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and record gone into. According to section 7(4) of the Ordinance supra, the cognizance of an offence under the same can only be taken by a Banking Court and that too on complaint in writing of an authorized person by the Financial Institutions/Bank. Hence the registration of the case with the police on the written application of respondent No.4 was not in accordance with the law on the subject.

8. In such circumstances, the continuance of the F.I.R. would amount to nothing but mere abuse of process of law. The petition, therefore is allowed and the F.I.R. quashed. No order is made as to costs.

C.M. No.2 of 2004

9. As the main petition has been accepted, hence the instant petition has gone infructuous. The same is disposed of as such.

H.B.T./A-351/L F.I.R. quashed.