Const. Petition No.D-1789 of 2011
Present
Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi.
Mr. Justice Farooq Ali Channa
Date of hearing : 05.10.2012
Date of order : 05.10.2012
Petitioner : Hashim Raza through
Mr. S. Nasir Abbas Rizvi,
Advocate.
Versus
Respondent : Director FIA & others through Mr.
Dilawer Hussain, Standing Counsel
O R D E R
Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, J. Through instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 15.01.2011 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Karachi South in Crl. Misc. Application No.16 of 2011.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that an application under section 22-A Cr.P.C for registration of FIR against the accused person nominated therein was dismissed by the learned District & Sessions Judge on account of jurisdiction. However, per learned counsel, while dismissing the application, the learned Judge has also made certain observations with regard to the merits of the case, which according to him, were not warranted under the facts and circumstances of the case, moreover when the Court had no jurisdiction over the case. It has been, therefore, prayed by the learned counsel that impugned order may be set-aside.
3. Notices were issued, pursuant to which learned Standing Counsel has shown his appearance, however, could not controvert the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has, however, contended that the remarks on the merits of the case may be expunged, whereas, remaining order shall be maintained.
4. We have heard both the learned counsel and perused the impugned order. It will be advantageous to reproduce the relevant para of the impugned order, which reads as follows:
“Apparently the cheque pertains to Sakhi Hassan Branch which is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Otherwise as well since the account of the applicant has been appropriated therefore, no case is made-out to issue direction as prayed. The application in hand in the circumstances has no force, which is hereby dismissed.”
5. From perusal of hereinabove para of the impugned order, it is noted that the learned Judge has dismissed the application of the petitioner on account of territorial jurisdiction, however, while dismissing the case he has also made certain observations with regard to the merits of the case.
6. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that once it has been held by the learned District & Sessions Judge, that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the petitioner, no finding on merits was required to be recorded. Accordingly, while maintaining the order of the learned Judge, dismissing the application of the petitioner on the point of jurisdiction, we would expunge the observations made by the learned Judge on the merits of the case.
Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
JUDGE
JUDGE