' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.---The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Islamabad dated 14-7-2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Islamabad whereby F.I.R. No, 192 of 2005 was registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. At P.S. Kohsar, Islamabad.
2. The learned counsel offered grounds that the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to make observation like, "it is an admitted fact that the cheques issued by respondent No,2 were presented at Islamabad within the local limits of P.S. Kohsar, Islamabad, where the respondent is maintaining his account." According to the learned counsel, these facts are not correct. The learned Sessions Judge also referred to section 188, Cr.P.C. According to the learned counsel, pre- requisite of section 188 Cr.P.C.Were not fulfilled, therefore, reliance on section 188 was absolutely incorrect and unwarranted. No certificate or approval was obtained from the political agent or from the Federal Government before passing order for registration of F.I.R. He further submitted that the cheques were issued from a company to company and cheques were not issued from an individual to individual, therefore, as such no offence was committed. The learned counsel submitted that section 489-F, P.P.C. Is not a valid piece of legislation. In this regard, he refers to a judgment of this Court passed by my learned brother Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, J. He also submits that dispute between the parties which is made basis, for registration of F.I.R. Was already decided by civil court in United Arab Emirates on 21-1-2004.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant (respondent No,4) submitted that in prayer clause of this writ petition validity of section 489-F, P.P.C. Was not challenged. He further submits that whether the facts disclosed in the F.I.R. Or in the impugned order are correct or incorrect, they can only be determined through a proper investigation which cannot be undertaken under the constitutional jurisdiction. He further submitted that jurisdiction of the ex-officio Justice of the Peace/Sessions Judge, Islamabad under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Is to be considered with provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C. Which do not require correct or incorrect information in relation to registration of an F.I.R. It only requires commission of a cognizable offence. He further contended that non-compliance of provisions of section 188, Cr.P.C. Is not a ground for quashment of F.I.R.
4. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel with due consideration and attention. Whether section 489-F, P.P.C. Is a valid and a living law or not? I have already passed a judgment on this point reported in 2005 PCr.LJ 1462, and I stick to my expressed view in the said judgment, detailed reasons are already offered in the said judgment. No Political Agent exist in the territory in which the alleged offence was committed. It may be pointed out that Criminal Procedure Code was enacted for the sub-continent but not for U.A.E. This part of section 188, Cr.P.C.
Is only attracted if there is any Political Agent in the area where occurrence took place. As far as first part of section 188, Cr.P.C. Is concerned, it applies only to a citizen of Pakistan when he commits an offence at any place without or beyond the limits of Pakistan and if there is no Political Agent, the sanction of Federal Government shall be required. It has been reported in NLR 1999 SD 217, that sanction under section 188, Cr.P.C. Is a procedural requirement and can be produced even after submission of challan in a Court of competent jurisdiction. In a recent judgment reported as PLJ 2005 Lahore (sic) it has been held that permission can be secured even after Submission of challan. Therefore, on this ground the order of the learned Sessions Judge or the F.I.R. Cannot be quashed. What is the impact of cheques issued by a company or signed on behalf of company, in my humble view, requires investigation. Likewise, I agree with the learned counsel for the complainant that for registration of case existence of correct or incorrect facts is not a requirement; requirement is that the information must disclose commission of a congnizable offence. I think, this proposition is well-settled and does not require further elaboration.
5. As a result of the above discussion and reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. However, before I conclude, the Investigating Officer is directed not to take any notice or influence of observations made by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order dated 14-7-2005 i,e, "it is an admitted fact that the cheques issued by the respondent No,2 were presented at Islamabad within local limits of Police Station Kohsar, Islamabad where respondent is maintaining his account, therefore, legal action ought to have been initiated against the delinquent by Kohsar Police Station". Likewise, it is observed by the learned Sessions Judge that, "issuance of the cheques by respondent No,2 in favour of the petitioner and bouncing of the same is a hard factand established through documents/bank memos. Pirma facie, it stands established that respondent No,2 is guilty of a cognizable offence." Fair and independent investigation is statutory right and at the same time obligation of police. The Courts can neither directly interfere nor influence investigating officers in investigation. The Investigating Officer is directed that while investigating the instant F.I.R., he will bear in mind his responsibility and seek guidance from Rule 25.2 of the Police. Rules, 1934.