' ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.---By virtue of this constitutional petition under Article 199 petitioner has challenged the vires of order dated 28-9-2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex- Officio Justice of the Peace Faisalabad whereby while accepting the application under sections 22- A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Lodged by respondent No,2, SHO Police Station Peoples Colony Faisalabad was directed to record F.I.R. As per his version and then proceed further strictly in accordance with law.
Through criminal original petition, petitioner has alleged violation of order dated 8-10-2012 passed by this Court whereby operation of order dated 28-9-2012 was suspended.
2. Brief facts leading to this petition are that Umar Qayyum Butt Unit Head Consumer Litigation Recovery and Litigation Department MCB Bank Ltd. Civil Lines Faisalabad/respondent No,2 lodged an application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Before the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace Faisalabad seeking registration of case against the petitioner for bouncing of cheque No,8015704 for a sum of Rs,1,50,000 to be drawn on Standard Chartered Bank Faisalabad allegedly issued by the petitioner for repayment of loan advanced by MCB Civil Lines Faisalabad. The learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio justice of the Peace after obtaining the report from the SHO passed the impugned order dated 28-9-2012 in the following manner:- "5. According to procedure if any complainant appears before SHO for registration of case then he must record the statement and then proceed further in accordance with provision of statute.
Therefore SHO, Police Station Peoples Colony is directed to record F.I.R. As per version of the petitioner and then proceed further strictly in accordance with law."
3. While entertaining this writ petition vide order dated 8-10-2012 this Court issued notice to respondent No,2 for 31-10-2012 and ordered that operation of impugned order dated 28-9-2012 shall remain suspended till the next date of hearing. Petitioner thereafter lodged above captioned criminal original petition against Hafiz Muhammad Irfan SHO Police Station Peoples Colony Faisalabad alleging that the said SHO despite having knowledge and notice of the injunctive order issued by this Court on 8-10-2012 has registered the F.I.R. No,1257 dated 17-10-2012 under section 489-F, P.P.C. Police Station Peoples Colony Faisalabad against the petitioner in sheer disobedience to the order of this Court calling for initiation of contempt proceedings against him as well implementation of the order of the Court in letter and spirit.
4. Hafiz Muhammad Irfan SHO in his reply to the criminal original petition contended that the order dated 8-10-2012 passed by this Court in this writ petition was neither received at the police station nor produced by the petitioner.
5. Through this composite order I intend to dispose of captioned constitutional petition as well as criminal original petition.
5(sic.) It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the event of dishonouring of a cheque issued towards repayment of finance or fulfillment of an obligation, the respondent Bank has remedy of filing a complaint in terms of section 20(4) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 and that under section 7 of the Ordinance ibid Banking Court is conferred criminal jurisdiction to punish the offences under the said Ordinance; that provision of section 489-F, P.P.C. In such like matters is not applicable, therefore, impugned order dated 28-9- 2012 and registration of F.I.R. No,1257 in violation of order of this Court dated 8-10-2012 are liable to be quashed.
6. It is resisted by learned counsel for the respondent Bank with the contentions that no doubt respondent Bank could file a complaint under section 20(4) of the Ordinance ibid but it was not debarred from getting the criminal case registered against the petitioner under section 489-F, P.P.C. Having a prerogative to get the grievance redressed through speedy remedy of his choice.
She added that the respondent had no notice of the order passed by this Court therefore F.I.R.
No,1257 was registered with bona fide intention in compliance of order dated 28-9-2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace, Faisalabad.
7. Arguments heard. Record perused.
8. At the outset it may be expedient to reproduce the provisions of section 20(4) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 and section 489-F of Pakistan Penal Code 1860 which reads as under:-- "Section 20(4) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001:---Whoever dishonestly issues a cheque towards repayment of a finance or fulfilment of an obligation which is dishonoured on presentation shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extent to one year or with fine or with both unless he can establish for which the burden of proof shall rest on him that he had made arrangements with his bank to ensure that the cheque would be honoured and that the bank was at fault in not honouring the cheque.
Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Cade, 1860:---Whoever dishonestly issues a cheque towards repayment of a loan or fulfilment of an obligation which. Is dishonoured on presentation, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine, or with both, unless he can establish, for which the burden of proof shall rest on him, that he had made arrangements with his bank to ensure that the cheque would be honoured and that the bank was at fault in not honouring the cheque."
9. Comparative appraisal of both the above quoted provisions manifests that only two words have been substituted in section 489-F, P.P.C. The word 'loan' used in section 20(4) of the Ordinance ibid is substituted with word 'finance' and punishment of 'one year' is substituted with `three years' however the remaining provisions of both the enactments are the same. Needless to say that objective in enacting the Banking Laws was to provide speedy remedy at one forum to the Banks for the recovery of their loans and for the customers of the Banks to approach the same Court in case of grievance against the Banks. Section 22 of the A Ordinance ibid provides provision of appeal before two Judges of this Court. Objective to legislate section 20(4) of the Ordinance ibid and section 489-F, P.P.C. Being altogether different should not be intermingled and thus arguments of learned counsel for respondent No,2 that Bank in its own prerogative was not debarred from getting criminal case registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. To redress its grievance through speedy remedy of his choice is devoid of any force. The impugned order dated 28-9-2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Office Justice of the Peace Faisalabad and F.I.R. No,1257 registered on the basis thereof being abuse of process of law are untenable.
10. For the above reasons, this writ petition is allowed and impugned order dated 28-9-2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Office Justice of the Peace Faisalabad and F.I.R. No,1257 dated 17-10-2012 under section 489-F, P.P.C., Police Station Peoples Colony Faisalabad, registered on the basis thereof are quashed. Respondent Bank however is at liberty to avail the efficacious remedies provided under the law if so solicited.
11. As regards criminal original petition suffice to say that there is no material available on the record to substantiate the plea that order dated 8-10-2012 passed by this Court was duly conveyed to the respondent SHO on or before 17-10-2012 therefore I am not inclined to proceed further with the petition. This criminal original petition is disposed of.