' KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.---The petitioner seeks quashing of F.I..R. No,11/2008 dated 18-7-2008 under section 489-F, P.P.C. Registered at F.I.A. Crime Circle, Lahore.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant started business in the field of Iron Ore and Gypsum in the month of February with M/s. Sinika International INIC sole partnership Firm through its Director Kamran Iqbal the petitioner, and pursuant to that an agreement was also executed between the parties. As per agreement respondent No,4 provided funds for the business and the petitioner was operational partner for the said business on the basis of profit and loss sharing. As per contract the petitioner executed a cheque in favour of respondent No,4. The petitioner also promised to give his company account for security but he had committed gross irregularities in the purchase and kept purchasing every thing in his name. Respondent No,4 asked the petitioner many a times for detailed accounts which the petitioner was unable to produce and lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. Consequently respondent No,4 presented the said cheque before the bank and the same was dishonoured because of insufficient balance in the respective account hence the aforesaid F.I.R. Against the petitioner.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. I am of the considered view that the Federal Investigation Agency has no jurisdiction whatsoever to register and investigate the instant case for the reason that under section 3 of the F.I.A. Act, 1974 the agency can investigation into the offence as given in the schedule attached to the Act and as per latest amendment which is quoted hereunder:--- "S.R.0.977(1)/2003.--In exercise of the powers conferred by section 6 of the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 (VIII of 1975) the Federal Government is pleased to direct that the following further amendment shall be made in the schedule to the aforesaid Act namely:- ' In the aforesaid Schedule, in entry (1), after the figure and letter "489E" the comma, figures and letter "489F" shall be inserted. (F. No . 1/18/97-FIA .1.).
' Section 489-F has duly been incorporated as per above quoted notification in the F.I.A. Act, 1974.
As per section 3 of F.I.A. Act, 1974, on those cases where offences are alleged to have been committed by a public servant as defined in section 21 of the P.P.C. Or those offences or allegedly committed in connection with the matter pertaining to the Federal Government or the same are committed by the employees of the Corporation set up, controlled and administered by Federal Government, but I am afraid in the instant case situation is altogether different, the petitioner had established a private concern which is neither affiliated with any of the Federal Government Organization nor has any concern directly or indirectly with any of the Federal Government Departments, therefore, the petitioner being the owner of private concern is not liable to be tried or investigated by the F.I.A. Jurisdiction of F.I.A. Is restricted only to the Federal Government Employees as enunciated in section 21 of the P.P.C.
4. Section 489-F, P.P.C. Is no doubt scheduled offence as narrated in the above Gazette notification but it pertains to only Federal Government Employees. Since it has been established that the petitioner is a private concern and his private concern has no concern with any of the Federal Government Departments, hence F.I.R. Registered against him by the F.I.A. Authorities is illegal and without jurisdiction. Logic behind incorporating section 489-F, P.P.C. In the schedule offences pertaining to F.I.A. Act, 1974 is that any of the employees of the Federal Government or any Organization attached or affiliated with the Federal Government shall be tried under the said provision of law. Moreover, investigation and submission of challan in the trial court emanating out of the said F.I.R. Is also illegal and without jurisdiction. In this context, I am fortified by DB judgment of this Court reported as Mian Hamza Shahbaz Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1999 PCr.LJ 1584 and while accepting this petition declare the entire proceedings coram non judice and also being strengthened by the judgments reported as Haji Muhammad Yousaf v. M. Abbas Khan and others (PLD 1968 Lahore 482) and (1994 SCMR 798) quash the aforesaid F.I.R. As well as all subsequent proceedings emanating from the said F.I.R.