MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO, J.---Petitioner No,1 claims to be dealing in the business of poultry farm with private respondents Nos,6 to 8 who, inter alia, supply him poultry feed, etc. whereas petitioner No,2 is his son. They seem to be aggrieved by registration of FIRs under section 489-F, P.P.C. against them by the said respondents on account of dishonoring of the cheques, which allegedly the petitioners gave to them in pursuance of some business transactions. In this background the petitioners have filed the instant petition seeking following reliefs:- a. "To restrain all the Justice of Peace and Official Respondents not to register further FIR's against the Petitioners when Respondents Nos,7 and 8, already availed one remedy and please to disapprove such practice of registering FIR one after the other at different Police Stations which is nothing but harassment. b. To quash the FIR's already registered against the Petitioners. c. Any other relief or reliefs this Honourable court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case, which this Honourable court deems fit and proper in circumstances of the case which otherwise petitioner entitled to and has omitted to pray for".
2. Record reveals that this petition was filed on 29.7.2017 and for the first time after more than five months was taken up in the court on 30.1.2017, but no one was present on behalf of petitioners.
Today when this matter was firstly called in the morning hours the clerk of learned counsel appeared and requested for a date on the ground that learned counsel was busy in some other case. However, we directed him to bring the learned counsel for his arguments as the matter was pending for a long time without even a notice ordered to be issued to the respondents. When in a later part of the day learned counsel appeared, we questioned him about maintainability of this petition. He has argued that a Justice of Peace cannot order registration of FIR against the petitioners without hearing them and that the FIRs under section 498-F, P.P.C. cannot be ordered to be registered against the petitioners, unless all the requirements stipulated under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act that determine validity of a cheque to be a bill of exchange are fulfilled. To, support his contentions he has read out section 498-F, P.P.C. and some of the provisions from the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. We have considered his submissions and have perused the material available on record including the relevant provisions of law cited by him. A perusal of prayers made by the petitioners would show that they are seeking general directions to all the justices of peace and official respondents (the police officials) not to register FIRs against them. Learned counsel although argued exhaustively but could not cite any relevant provision of law under which such directions could be given by this court restraining a person(s) who has any grievance against the petitioners from approaching justice of peace for its redressal. In our view, such general and sweeping directions cannot be passed. Under no law a person who has an information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence can be stopped from registering the FIR against the accused.
Dishonoring a cheque given either to fulfill an obligation or to repay a loan is a cognizable offence as per IInd Schedule of Cr.P.C. and is punishable ender section 489-F, P.P.C. And therefore if a person reports such a matter to the duty officer at a police station, he has no option but to lodge the FIR. It is only in the ensuing investigation all the matters including validity of the cheque, the reason of giving the cheque, etc. could be determined, or the fact that whether or not the cheque was given in fulfillment of an obligation or in repayment of a loan as alleged. If the petitioners have committed any cognizable offence, the law must take its course, but if they have not, the justice of peace has a duty in law to decline the application for registration of FIR against them. Since the order of justice of peace is a quasi judicial order as is held in the case of Younas Abbas and others v. Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal and others (PLD 2016 SC 581), a bounden duty is cast on him to judicially examine all the material brought before him and hear the relevant parties before passing on a direction to SHO concerned for an FIR against accused. It seems vital to state here that the law regulating registration of an FIR is exhaustive and provides many safeguards to an accused falsely roped in the case. As a reference it may be mentioned that an FIR would not be lodged, unless information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence is made to the duty officer at the police station. The FIR then follows the investigation and if in the investigation the information is found false not only the FIR is cancelled/disposed of but an action against the complainant under section 182, P.P.C. is initiated. And it is not irrelevant to add here that mere registration of an FIR does not necessarily mean that the accused nominated therein is guilty of the offence alleged against him, or that he shall be arrested by the Investigation Officer immediately after registration of the FIR. Time and again the superior courts have held that arrest of an accused shall be affected only when some cogent and sound evidence connecting him with the commission of offence is discovered against him. In presence of such a meticulous procedure and protection, a sweeping direction cannot be given to all the justices of peace and the police officials not to register FIR against the petitioners.
4. As to prayer clause (b) that is to quash the FIRs already registered against the petitioners, it is to be noted that the petitioners have not given a detail of any FIRs in the said prayer clause that they seek to be quashed. However, a perusal of the file has led us to discover a copy of FIR bearing crime No, 98/2016 under sections 420, 489-F and 34, P.P.C. at page No,209 of the file which was got registered by respondent No,7 namely Rizwan Ali at Soldier Bazzar Police Station on 08.04.2016. After investigation in the said FIR, the challan that is available at page No, 251 of the file was filed in the relevant court 27.04.2016. Another FIR bearing crime No,117/2016 is available at page-337 of the file, which was got registered by respondent No,8 namely Muhammad Javed against the petitioner No, 1 under section 489-F, P.P.C. at Police Station Mubina Town, Karachi on 09.06.2016 and keeping in view the requirement of law for filing the challan in fourteen (14) days after the FIR, it can be safely presumed that the challan in the said FIR must have been filed. Therefore, keeping in view of the dicta laid down in the case law reported in 2016 SCMR 1957, 2011 SCM R 1813 and PLD 2003 SC 401; we are of the humble view that the said FIRs cannot be quashed. But it may be mentioned that if the petitioners are of the view that there is no material against them and that they have been falsely implicated in the cases, they may at the first instance file an application under relevant provisions of law that is to say section 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. before the trial court for getting relief as provided under the law.
For foregoing discussion, in our estimation this petition is not maintainable and is dismissed accordingly in limine along with pending applications.