ANWAR.UL-HAQ vs S.H.O., POLICE STATION NISHATABAD, FAISALABAD and another
The petitioner, having been held liable as a guarantor in a civil suit for loan recovery, sought to challenge the validity of the guarantee deed by lodging an F.I.R. against the loanee and the Bank Manager, alleging the document was fictitious. Following the quashment of this F.I.R. by the High Court in a Constitutional petition and the subsequent dismissal of an Intra-Court Appeal, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether a party, having been held liable by a final civil decree, could circumvent the appellate process by initiating criminal proceedings to challenge the underlying document of liability. The Supreme Court held that the civil decree, having attained finality, could not be undone through collateral criminal proceedings. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's failure to challenge the civil decree via appeal precluded him from attempting to re-litigate the validity of the guarantee deed through an F.I.R. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, affirming that criminal proceedings cannot be used as a substitute for the proper appellate remedies against a final civil judgment.
- Can a party challenge the validity of a document forming the basis of a final civil decree through criminal proceedings?
- Is an F.I.R. a permissible mechanism to undo the findings of a court of competent jurisdiction that have attained finality?
- Does a party's failure to appeal a civil decree preclude them from initiating criminal proceedings to contest the underlying liability?
ORDER
' RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.---Fact leading to the filing of this petition are that petitioner stood guarantor of one Muhammad Akram, who had obtained loan from a bank. Said Muhammad Akram defaulted, therefore, a suit was instituted for recovery of the borrowed amount against the loanee as well as the guarantor. A decree was, accordingly, passed against both of them. Instead of challenging the said decree by way of appeal, the petitioner resorted to lodging of an F.I.R. Against the loanee and the Bank Manager, Abdul Salam, with the allegation that both of them had prepared the deed of guarantee fictitiously as he had never signed the same. The Bank Manager filed a Constitutional petition for quashment of the said. F.I.R. Which was allowed. Thereafter, an I.C.A. Was filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the learned Judge in Chambers passed in the Constitutional petition, which was also dismissed giving rise to the present petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel at length and perused the file. The judgment and decree was passed in the case by a Court of competent jurisdiction wherein the petitioner has been held to be the guarantor. The petitioner did not choose to assail the said findings which have attained finality but by way of criminal proceedings wants to undo the same but he cannot do so without filing of appeal. There is no merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 1 case
- Mst. SEEMA Versus State 2022 YLRN 67