MOHSIN AKHTAR KAYANI, J.--Through the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the letter/order dated 14.02.2017 issued by Deputy Director, Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), Commercial Banking Circle (CBC), Phase-V Hayatabad, Peshawar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is aggrieved of so-called inquiry proceedings as well as order dated 14.02.2017 incompetently issued by FIA Authorities, as matter in question falls within the domain of civil dispute exclusively triable by the competent Civil Court; that the petitioner is a limited company and it has no connection whatsoever with the Federal Government, where the FIA Authorities can exercise their jurisdiction; that petitioner company entered into a business deal with Messrs Al-Hanan Al-Manan Limited for supply of cement manufactured by the petitioner company and relationship had started in January 2010, consequently the petitioner started supply of huge quantity of cement for and on behalf of the company against the payments received through banking channel in relation to the said contract of supply; that the petitioner company has supplied the required cement to Messrs Al-Hanan Al- Manan Limited against the payments received in this behalf and nothing is outstanding against payments so received; that respondent No.4, who is stranger in the entire matter having no connection with the aforesaid company approached FIA Authorities and filed a complaint for recovery of outstanding advance payments made to Messrs Maple Leaf Cement Factory Limited vide application dated 11.11.2016 which was addressed to Director General FIA and on the basis of said application the impugned letter dated 14.02.2017 was issued by Deputy Director, FIA CBC, Peshawar.
3. Arguments heard, record perused.
4 From the perusal of record, it has been observed' that the petitioner is a cement manufacturer working under the name and style of Maple Leaf Cement Factory Limited, who had entered into a business transaction with Messrs Al-Hanan Al-Manan Limited for the supply of cement, and the petitioner company had supplied the cement and as per their version nothing is due against the company but respondent No.4 has filed a complaint for recovery of the outstanding advance payments made to Messrs Maple Leaf Cement Factory Limited for supply of cement vide application dated 11.11.2016. The said application was addressed to DO FIA Islamabad, however, at present the petitioner has received a notice dated 14.02.2017 issued by Deputy Director FIA CBC, Peshawar in inquiry No.03/2017, whereby the following details have been required. i. Attested copies of all record of payments by "Shirkat Al-Hanan Al-Manan Limited" made to Maple Leaf Cement Factory Limited. ii. Record of cement delivered to Shirkat Al-Hanan Al-Manan Ltd against each payment.
I have gone through the entire record and confronted the learned counsel for petitioner as to how this Court can assume the jurisdiction against the inquiry pending before FIA, CBC. Peshawar.
Learned counsel for petitioner categorically stated that FIA Headquarter is at Islamabad and the complaint filed by respondent No.4 has been addressed to DG FIA at Islamabad but fact remains the same that matter is related to FIA, CBC, Peshawar, whereupon inquiry No.03/2017 was initiated and Chief Executive of petitioner company has been directed to provide the documents referred above.
5. It is settled law that the Islamabad High Court has concurrent jurisdiction on the subject on the ground that DG FIA falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, but the subject matter exclusively falls within the jurisdiction of FIA, CRC, Peshawar, even the petitioner has been called by the Deputy Director FIA CBC, Peshawar, which confirms that the petitioner could not choose the jurisdiction keeping in view his convenience on the analogy of section 20, C.P.C, by raising the plea that part of cause of action has been accrued at Islamabad when application of respondent No,4 was entertained by DO FIA, Islamabad, It is settled principle of law that cause of action for filing of writ petition in criminal matters can only be seen with reference to place of occurrence of crime, major portion of evidence collected in relation to chain of evidence and inquiry/investigation carried out in a specific territory. Therefore, keeping in view all these factors, jurisdiction of a Court is to be determined.
6. In view of above referred legal proposition, fortified with the view reported in 2016 PCr.1,1 1056 "Jamsho o Joint Venture and another v. FederoPakistat", The matter in dispute is under inquiry before FIA, CBC, Peshawar even the CEO of petitioner company has been called for the submission of requisite documents and details at Peshawar, therefore, it is necessary to challenge the same on any legal ground before the competent Court at Peshawar only.
7. In view of above, instant writ petition stands dismissed for want of jurisdiction.