IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,
CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.
Cr.Misc.Appl.No.S- 327 of 2012
Mr. Khwaja Ayatullah, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. Sardar Muhammad Yousif, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Shahid Shaikh, A.P.G. for the State.
MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, J: This is an application filed u/s 561-A Cr.P.C. with the prayer that impugned order dated 24.05.2012 passed by Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate-II Kot Ghulam Muhammad be set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that applicant deposited a cheque of Respondent at a Bank for its encashment in his account within jurisdiction of Police Station Kot Ghulam Muhammad which was bounced and such slip was issued by the said Bank. Based on this, applicant lodged FIR within jurisdiction of Police Station Kot Ghulam Muhammad. On submitting report, Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate passed the impugned order in which it was observed as under:-
“In view of the above it is clear that the cheque in question bearing No.6568309 of account No.10360000057-00015 of Bank Islamic Pak: Ltd, of Shaheed-a-Millat road branch Karachi amounting to Rs.24,86,000/- dt: 14.11.2011 was actually dishonored by bank Islamic Pak:Ltd:Shaheed-e-Millat road branch Karachi, and not by U.B.L, Branch Kot Ghulam Muhammad and accused has an account in bank of K.G.M, branch, hence the above FIR, is approved to be disposed of under “C” cancelled class instead of false “B” Class for want of jurisdiction, leaving the complainant liberty to lodge his report within jurisdiction at concerned Police Station.”
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that both the Police Stations have jurisdiction and the applicant has option to lodge the FIR either at place where the cheque was deposited and bounced or at the place where the Principal Bank is actually situated and from where the recommendations were issued. Learned counsel has relied upon the case of Aijaz Ali Noonari v. Station House Officer, P.S. Hussainabad and antoher, reported in 2012 YLR 360 and the case of Mazhar Hussain v. The State and 2 others, reported in PLD 2010 Lahore 60.
4. In the subsequent case, it was observed as under:-
“Complainant got registered FIR at Police Station “F.S”, district ‘S’ against petitioner / accused. Accused had contended that F.I.R. registered at Police Station “F.S’ was without jurisdiction as dispute cheque was issued from the Bank at place ‘A’ in district “B” and cheque in dispute was also dishonoured by said Bank; and that registration of F.I.R. by Police Station at place “F.S” was totally unwarranted and without jurisdiction. The police in the above referred case submitted a report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. in which it was found that FIR had been registered without jurisdiction and was liable to be cancelled. The learned Magistrate in the said case disagreed with the report and took cognizance of the offence on the ground that complainant deposited the cheque in question in Bank at place ‘F.S’ district ‘S’ where he had his account and cheque was dishonoured. The moment the cheque was dishonoured offence was completed at place ‘A’ in district ‘B’, but complainant came to know about dishonor of cheque at district ‘S’ where he had his account in which he had deposited the cheque in dispute and consequently offence u/s 489-F P.P.C. was completed. It was held in the aforesaid case that both the Police Stations ‘A’ and ‘F.S’ had got jurisdiction to lodge the FIR.”
5. Similarly, in the instant case, the dispute is with regard to the jurisdiction of Police Station. It is claimed by learned counsel for respondents that Bank Islamic Pakistan Limited Karachi, situated at Shaheed-e-Millat Road, Karachi was the Bank from where the cheque was dishonoured and hence the Police Station Kot Ghulam Muhammad has no jurisdiction. Learned counsel for respondents has discussed the merits of the case as it is stated by learned counsel for respondents that earlier an FIR was registered at Karachi by respondent in respect of the cheque which was allegedly stolen by the applicant and in order to take revenge and pressurize the respondents, the instant FIR has been lodged. Learned counsel for respondents also submits that the report in fact was submitted under “B” class which has not been accepted by the learned Magistrate which is contrary to law.
6. On the other hand, learned A.P.G. concedes to the extent of concurrent jurisdiction of two Police Stations, however he added that in case the impugned order is required to be set aside and remanded to the Judicial Magistrate then the Judicial Magistrate may be directed to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after considering the entire record available before him.
7. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record.
8. The issue before me is only to the extent of jurisdiction as to whether the FIR was competently lodged at Police Station Kot Ghulam Muhammad. This question has been clearly explained in the aforesaid relied case. The Judicial Magistrate in concluding para has only relied on the fact that cheque which was allegedly issued to the applicant was of Bank Islamic Pakistan Limited situated at Shaheed-e-Millat Road, Karachi and actually dishonoured at Karachi. The trial Court has not discussed the concurrent jurisdiction and has also not considered Section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code which reads as under:-
“Accused triable in district where act is done or where consequence ensues. When a person is accused of the commission of any offence by reason of anything which has been done, and of any consequence which has ensued, such offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any such thing has been done, or any such consequence has ensued.”
9. The trial Court appears to have passed the order summarily without touching the legal aspect as enshrined in aforesaid two cited cases and as described u/s 179 Cr.P.C.
10. Without considering the merits of the case which has been argued by learned counsel for respondents, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the trial Court to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after considering the relevant provisions of law and the record available before him.
11. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application stands disposed of in the above terms.