Law:

Section:

Microfinance Institution Ordinance, 2001--

----S. 3(2)(3)--Legal position--Micro Finance Institutions cannot deemed to be a banking company--Jurisdiction--All microfinance institutions have been specifically taken out of pail of other banking laws by making legal position clear that no such institutions would be considered as banking company--Banking Court has no jurisdiction to deal with any matter other than business of Scheduled Bank, and definitely microfinance institutions are not included in list of Scheduled Banks--It becomes crystal clear that remedy before banking Court would be available to exclusion of all other forums only when Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 would attract, whereas, in terms of Section 3(2) of Microfinance Institutions Ordinance, 2001, financial institutions shall not apply to microfinance institutions.

[Pp. 100 101] A, B C

PLJ 2013 Lahore 606 and 2017 SCMR 1218.

Microfinance Institution Ordinance, 2001--

----S. 3(2)--Criminal Procedure Code, (V of 1898), Ss. 22-A/22-B--Repayment of loan--Issuance of cheque--Allegation of dishonesty--Application of criminal and general laws--Jurisdiction--Challenge to--NRSP Microfinance Bank Limited being only a microfinance institution and not being included in list of Scheduled Banks, cannot take immunity from applicability of general law i.e. Criminal Procedure Code--Therefore, both above referred citations do not advance case of petitioner--Microfinance institutions cannot be termed as financial institution within contemplation of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, to say that its matter could only be tried by Banking Court--Thus, Code of Criminal Procedure being fully applicable, application filed under Section 22-A/22-B Cr.P.C. on behalf of microfinance institution was fully competent and impugned orders passed by learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace do not suffer from any jurisdictional or legal error.

[P. 102] D E

Order

This single order is meant to decide three connected matters i.e. (i) Writ Petition No. 233516 of 2018 “Muhammad Mumtaz Akhtar versus ASJ, etc., (ii) Writ Petition No. 233530 of 2018 “Muhammad Nawaz Akhtar versus ASJ, etc.”, and (iii) Writ Petition No. 233532 of 2018 “Muhammad Sarfraz Akhtar versus ASJ, etc. as all these have arisen out of similar facts and circumstances.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that Abdul Qadir (Respondent No. 3 in all these three petitions) in his capacity as Manager NRSP (National Rural Support Program) Microfinance Bank Shorkot Road, Toba Tek Singh filed separate applications under Section 22-A Cr.P.C., to seek direction for registration of criminal cases against all the three writ petitioners, with the allegation of dishonestly issuing a cheques pleading that the same had been issued by the petitioners towards repayment of loan. The learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-officio Justice of Peace vide three separate orders of even date i.e. 29.08.2018 directed the SHO to record statement of the applicant/Respondent No. 3 and proceed further in accordance with law. These orders have been challenged by the respective petitioners through their independent writ petitions.

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492