Summary: Background: The petitioner sought the quashment of an FIR filed under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), which deals with dishonored cheques. The petitioner argued that the cheque was issued in good faith as repayment of a loan to a financial institution (bank), and thus the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Banking Court under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (Ordinance 2001). The petitioner claimed that invoking Section 489-F PPC in this context was an abuse of process. -----Issues: 1- Whether the provisions of Section 489-F PPC are applicable to disputes involving dishonored cheques issued in connection with financial transactions governed by the Ordinance 2001. -----2- Whether the Banking Court has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters, precluding proceedings under general criminal laws. -----3- Whether quashing the FIR would obstruct the investigation or bury factual issues between the parties. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court noted that the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, is a special law with overriding effect on ordinary criminal law. Under Section 20(4) of the Ordinance, dishonestly issuing a dishonored cheque is punishable, and remedies for financial institutions are clearly outlined within the Ordinance. The Court held that prosecuting the petitioner under Section 489-F PPC, in a case involving a financial institution and a finance facility, constituted an abuse of process. The matter fell exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Banking Court. The Court relied on precedents that disallow financial institutions from using Section 489-F PPC as a tool for recovery, emphasizing that the Ordinance 2001 provides a comprehensive legal framework. The petition was allowed, and the FIR was quashed. No costs were imposed. -----Citations/Precedents: PLD 2009 Lahore 541: Establishes the Ordinance 2001 as a comprehensive legal framework for financial disputes. 2009 P.Crl.LJ 325 (D.B): Supports exclusive jurisdiction of Banking Courts in financial disputes. 2010 YLR 547: Reinforces the principle that Banking Court remedies cannot be bypassed. 2009 CLD 1422: Discusses the application of Section 20(4) of the Ordinance. 2010 CLD 344: Clarifies the scope of criminal jurisdiction under the Ordinance. 2010 P.Crl.LJ 412: Affirms that criminal proceedings under general law cannot override the Ordinance. 2009 CLD 1149: Examines procedural remedies under Section 7 of the Ordinance. 2011 CLD Lahore 1539: Highlights limitations on using Section 489-F PPC for financial disputes. 2012 MLD Sindh 1551: Addresses the procedural framework of the Ordinance. 2012 P.Crl.LJ Sindh 1890: Confirms the exclusive jurisdiction of Banking Courts. 2006 CLD 625: Emphasizes the importance of maintaining Banking Court jurisdiction. 2010 CLD 10: Critiques the misuse of Section 489-F PPC in financial matters.

Summary: S.489-F PPCAvailability of alternate remedy(Petition dismissed)

Summary: Withdrawn through application

Summary: The court held that pleadings of the parties clearly show that disputed facts and questions are involved for which recording of evidence is required, which exercise cannot be carried out in the constitutional jurisdiction of this court. In this view of the matter, instant petition was dismissed being not maintainable.

Summary: Dismissed for non-prosecution

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: ----Ss. 5(a) & 12---Freezing of property---Private person--- Abscondance---Appellant was aggrieved of order passed by Accountability Court freezing his property--Validity---Order of Chairman NAB was subject to confirmation of court before which reference lay, while order passed by Trial Court did not require any confirmationAccused allegedly received more than a sum of Rs.90 million, which was transferred from the account of company in question to his account---Accused as per definition given in S.5(a) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, included a person in respect of whom there were reasonable ground to believe that he was or had been involved in commission of any offence triable under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, or was subject of investigation or inquiry by NAB---Appellant was facing inquiry at the relevant time and thereafter wilfully absconded---Freezing order did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. -----(a) National Accountability Law ----National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), Ss. 12(a), 12(c), & 34-A—Freezing of property—Jurisdiction of NAB authorities Freezing of property under section 12 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999—Held, that both the trial court and the Chairman, NAB, have the authority to freeze property, but the Chairman’s order is subject to confirmation within 15 days by the court where the reference is to be sent—Delegation of power to the Director General (D.G.), NAB, was upheld in light of SRO No. 712(I)/2005 dated 22-9-2004, published in the Gazette of Pakistan on 15-7-2005—Contention that the D.G., NAB, lacked authority was unfounded, as all Regional Directors General were duly vested with powers under section 12 of the Ordinance. (b) Proclaimed Offender ----Legal consequences of absconding—Rights of a proclaimed offender Held, that a proclaimed offender loses certain normal legal rights—The appellant was found to have received more than Rs. 90 million, transferred from Gillani Corporation's account, thus establishing reasonable grounds for involvement under section 5(a) of the Ordinance—Contention that he was not connected to the offense was dismissed as he was already facing inquiry and subsequently absconded. (c) Confirmation of Freezing Orders ----Judicial confirmation of NAB orders—Validity of the impugned order Held, that freezing orders issued by the Chairman, NAB, require confirmation, whereas trial court orders do not—The learned Administrative Judge lawfully confirmed the freezing order—Contention that the appellant was not subject to NAB proceedings lacked merit in light of ongoing inquiry and financial transactions linked to the alleged offense. ----- Disposition Appeal dismissed—Impugned freezing order upheld—Appellant remained a proclaimed offender and failed to substantiate claims of wrongful property attachment.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.