| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 5528 2025 SLD 5528 = 2025 YLR 1810 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 4285 of 2024, decided on 24th March, 2025.
Before Raheel Kamran, J
Syed Zeeshan Haider Zaidi for Petitioners. Muhammad Nadeem for
Respondent No. 2.
Writ Petition No. 4285 of 2024, decided on 24th March, 2025.
Before Raheel Kamran, J
Syed Zeeshan Haider Zaidi for Petitioners. Muhammad Nadeem for
Respondent No. 2.
AHSAN IDREES and another---Appellants
VERSUS
JUDGE BANKING COURT NO.V, LAHORE and others---Respondents
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 344,249A,265K
Law: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
Section: XLVI,20
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 344, 249-A & 265-K---Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S. 20 ---Constitution of Pakistan, Art . 199---Filing of private criminal complaint by the Bank against accused / customer , challenging of---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Summoning of accused not being challenged by the customer/ accused---Effect---Alternate remedy, availability of---Petitioners (customers) challenged filing of criminal private complaint by filing constitutional petition on the ground that civil litigation was already pending before the Banking Court on the same subject, thus, proceedings should be stayed till final decision of the civil litigation--Validity---Record (including appended copies of complaint along with order sheet) reflected that the Banking Court had passed order under S.204 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ('Cr.P.C') while taking cognizance of the matter and summoning the accused (petitioners) to face trial---But no supplication to challenge said summoning order had been made by the petitioners /accused; whereas such order, being judicial in nature, was assailable, however, none of the petitioners ever challenged the same---Non-assailing of the order whereby cognizance was taken by the Judge Banking Court, would imply that the petitioners had submitted to jurisdiction of the Banking Court in the complaint against them --- After failure of the petitioners to challenge the summoning order, if they wanted stay of criminal proceedings pending civil litigation, they could move an application under S.344 of the Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court with prayer to postpone the commencement of trial or adjourn the trial, if already commenced, pending decision in the respective civil proceedings---Provision under S.344 of the Cr.P.C. denotes that a court may postpone the initiation of any inquiry or trial or may adjourn any inquiry or trial which is already in progress---Postponement of the commencement or adjournment of trial can be made due to the absence of a witness or for any other reasonable cause --Petitioners could even have approached the Trial Court by moving application…