 |
| Micro finanace bank FIR for loan |
قرض کی واپسی کے لیے چیک ڈس آنر ہونے پر ایف آئی آر خارج — لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا اہم فیصلہ
⚖️ مالیاتی ادارے کے قرض کی واپسی کے لیے جاری کردہ چیک ڈس آنر ہو جائے تو قانونی کارروائی کس قانون کے تحت ہوگی؟
لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا ہے کہ اگر کوئی مالیاتی ادارہ مالیاتی اداروں کی وصولی کے آرڈیننس 2001 کے دائرے میں آتا ہو اور چیک اس سے حاصل کردہ قرض کی واپسی کے لیے جاری کیا گیا ہو تو متعلقہ معاملے میں دفعہ 20(4) کے تحت کارروائی ہوگی، نہ کہ دفعہ 489-F تعزیراتِ پاکستان کے تحت۔
🔹 مقدمے کے حقائق
درخواست گزار صفیر حسین نے فن جا لینڈنگ سروسز لمیٹڈ سے قرض حاصل کیا۔ قرض کی واپسی کے لیے اس نے ڈیڑھ کروڑ روپے کا چیک جاری کیا، جو بینک میں پیش کرنے پر ڈس آنر ہوگیا۔ اس پر کمپنی نے تھانہ ریس کورس لاہور میں دفعہ 489-F تعزیراتِ پاکستان کے تحت ایف آئی آر نمبر 1127/2024 درج کروا دی۔
درخواست گزار نے لاہور ہائی کورٹ سے رجوع کرتے ہوئے مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ شکایت کنندہ کمپنی ایک مالیاتی ادارہ ہے، اس لیے قرض کی واپسی کے لیے جاری کردہ چیک کے معاملے میں کارروائی مالیاتی اداروں کی وصولی کے آرڈیننس 2001 کے تحت بینکنگ کورٹ میں ہونی چاہیے۔
🔹 مالیاتی ادارے اور مائیکروفنانس ادارے میں فرق
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ مالیاتی اداروں کی وصولی کا آرڈیننس 2001 اور مائیکروفنانس اداروں کا آرڈیننس 2001 الگ الگ قوانین ہیں۔ مائیکروفنانس کا قانون مخصوص طبقے اور چھوٹے کاروباروں کو مالی سہولت فراہم کرنے والے اداروں سے متعلق ہے، جبکہ مالیاتی اداروں کی وصولی کا آرڈیننس وسیع دائرہ رکھتا ہے۔
عدالت نے پایا کہ فن جا لینڈنگ سروسز لمیٹڈ متعلقہ قانون کے تحت مالیاتی ادارہ ہے، لہٰذا اس کے فراہم کردہ مالیاتی قرض کی واپسی سے متعلق معاملہ بینکنگ کورٹ کے دائرۂ اختیار میں آتا ہے۔
🔹 دفعہ 489-F تعزیراتِ پاکستان کا اطلاق
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ مالیاتی اداروں کی وصولی کے آرڈیننس 2001 کی دفعہ 20(4) اس وقت لاگو ہوتی ہے جب کوئی شخص بددیانتی سے مالیاتی قرض کی واپسی یا متعلقہ ذمہ داری پوری کرنے کے لیے چیک جاری کرے اور وہ ڈس آنر ہو جائے۔
عدالت نے یہ بھی واضح کیا کہ ہر ڈس آنر چیک اس قانون کے تحت نہیں آتا۔ اگر چیک کسی ایسی کاروباری ذمہ داری، سروس فیس یا معاہدے کے تحت جاری کیا گیا ہو جو مذکورہ آرڈیننس کے تحت مالیاتی قرض میں شامل نہ ہو تو حالات کے مطابق دفعہ 489-F تعزیراتِ پاکستان لاگو ہو سکتی ہے۔
🔹 بینکنگ کورٹ کا خصوصی اختیار
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ مالیاتی اداروں کی وصولی کے آرڈیننس 2001 کے تحت آنے والے جرائم کی سماعت کا خصوصی اختیار بینکنگ کورٹ کو حاصل ہے۔ اس قانون کے تحت فوجداری کارروائی متعلقہ مالیاتی ادارے کے مجاز شخص کی تحریری شکایت پر شروع کی جاتی ہے۔
لہٰذا، جب معاملہ مذکورہ آرڈیننس کے دائرے میں آتا ہو تو محض چیک ڈس آنر ہونے کی بنیاد پر دفعہ 489-F کے تحت عام پولیس ایف آئی آر درج کرکے کارروائی نہیں کی جا سکتی۔
🔹 عدالت کا حتمی فیصلہ
لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے درخواست منظور کرتے ہوئے صفیر حسین کے خلاف درج ایف آئی آر خارج کر دی۔ تاہم عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ شکایت کنندہ کمپنی مالیاتی اداروں کی وصولی کے آرڈیننس 2001 کی دفعہ 7 کے تحت بینکنگ کورٹ میں شکایت دائر کرکے دفعہ 20(4) کے تحت قانونی کارروائی کر سکتی ہے۔
⚖️ اہم قانونی اصول
اس فیصلے سے واضح ہوتا ہے کہ ڈس آنر چیک کے مقدمے میں صرف چیک کا واپس ہونا کافی نہیں، بلکہ یہ دیکھنا بھی ضروری ہے کہ چیک کس مقصد کے لیے جاری کیا گیا، متعلقہ ادارہ کس قانونی تعریف میں آتا ہے اور معاملہ کس عدالت کے دائرۂ اختیار میں ہے۔
حوالہ: Safeer Hussain v. Capital City Police Officer, Lahore، 2026 CLD 303، لاہور ہائی کورٹ، فیصلہ مورخہ 25 فروری 2025ء۔
#LahoreHighCourt #2026CLD303 #DishonouredCheque #Section489F #BankingCourt #FinancialInstitutions #PakistanLaw
Must read judgment.
2026 C L D 303
[Lahore]
Before Tariq Saleem Sheikh, J
SAFEER HUSSAIN---Petitioner
versus
CAPITAL CITY POLICE OFFICER, LAHORE and 4 others---Respondents
Writ Petition No. 48137 of 2024, decided on 25th February, 2025.
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)---
----Ss. 2(a), 4 & 20(4)---Microfinance Institutions Ordinance (LV of 2001), S. 2(ia)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Quashing of FIR---Dishonoring of cheque---Repayment of loan---Financial institution and Microfinance sought institution---Distinction---Petitioner/accused quashing of FIR registered on dishonouring of cheque issued for repayment of loan---Validity---Scope of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 is fundamentally different from that of Microfinance Institutions Ordinance, 2001---Provisions of Microfinance Institution Ordinance, 2001 are sector-specific, focused exclusively on microfinance institutions serving underprivileged and microenterprises segments---Provisions of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 are broad in coverage and
304
CORPORATE LAW DECISIONS
[Vol. XXV
definition of a "financial institution" under S. 2(a) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---Nature of apply to wide range of financial institutions falling within statutory respondent/complainant's business activities squarely fell within the
arising from financial accommodations respondent/complainant fel extended by ambit of the term "financial institution" under S. 2(a)(i) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---Any obligations fell within the jurisdiction of Banking Coun under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---S. 489-F. P.P.C. stated that petitioner/ accused obtained a "loan from First Information Report registered by respondent/complainant under it and gave cheque in question for its repayment which was dishonoured on presentation---Parties acknowledged that petitioner/accused was covered under the definition of "customer" and the cheque was given for the repayment of "finance" and fulfilment of an "obligation" as defined in S. 2 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---Respondent/ complainant was a financial institution within the meaning of S. 2(a) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance; 2001 and cheque had been issued for the repayment of finance, the alleged offence fell exclusively under S. 20(4) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, Court had exclusive jurisdiction over such matters under S. 7 of 2001 and the provision of S. 489-F, P.P.C. did not apply---Banking Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001-Any prosecution against petitioner/accused had to be initiated through a complaint before Banking Court as prescribed under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---High Court in exercise of Constitution jurisdiction quashed the FIR registered against petitioner/accused---High Court clarified that respondent/complainant was not precluded from filing a complaint under S. 7 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 before Banking Court for prosecution under S. 20(4) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.[pp. 307, 309] A & B
Ch. Sultan Mahmood, assisted by Samran Mushtaq Chaudhry and Muhammad Sohaib Mazhar for Petitioner.
to 3.
Sittar Sahil, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents Nos. 1
Ms. Nosheen Ambar Bukhari and Syeda: Zunaira Gillani for Respondent No.4.
Date of hearing: 25th September, 2024.
2026]
Safeer Hussain v. Capital City Police Officer, Lahore (Tariq Saleem Sheikh, J) 305
JUDGMENT
TARIQ SALEEM SHEIKH, J.---Finja Lending Services Limited (FLSL) is a public company operating as a Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC). It has lodged FIR No.1127/2024 dated 13.7.2024 under section 489-F, P.P.C. at Police Station Race Course, Lahore, against the Petitioner through Junaid Hussain Bukhari, their authorized attorney, for the dishonour of a cheque which he had allegedly given it to discharge his financial obligation. The Petitioner seeks quashing of that FIR through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, on the ground that it is without jurisdiction. He contends that FLSL is a "financial institution" within the meaning of section 2(a) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finarices) Ordinance 2001 (FIO). If it seeks to prosecute any of its customers for dishonestly issuing a bad cheque, it should file a complaint with the Banking Court under section 7 of the FIO. An FIR under section 154, Cr.P.C. is not competent.
-
NBFCs play a critical role in the financial ecosystem of Pakistan through the following forms of business: (i) Investment Finance Services (IFS), (ii) Leasing, (iii) Housing Finance Services, (iv) Venture Capital Investment, (v) Discounting Services, (vi) Investment Advisory Services, (vii) Asset Management Services, and (viii) any other form of business that the Federal Government may specify from time to time by notification in the official Gazette.¹
-
According to Rule 2(1)(xxviii) of the Non-Banking Finance Companies (Establishment and Regulation) Rules 2003 (the "2003 Rules"), IFS means the business of providing finance on conventional or Islamic basis.
-
Microfinance is one of the activities under the IFS. The Non-Banking Finance Companies and Notified Entities Regulations 2008 (the "2008 Regulations") define it as the finance provided to a poor person or microenterprise. A "poor person" is an individual with a meager means of subsistence and whose total business income, excluding expenses during a year, is less than or equal to Rs.1,200,000/- or such other minimum limit as may be notified from time to time. On the other hand, microenterprise" means projects or businesses in trading, manufacturing, services, or agriculture that lead to livelihood improvement and income
According to clause (xxxiii-a) of Rule 2(1) of the Non-Banking Finance
ала.
2026]
Safeer Hussain v. Capital City Police Officer, Lahore (Tariq Saleem Sheikh, J)
307
company licensed to undertake Investment Finances Services and shall be authorized to take all necessary steps and actions in connection therewith and ancillary thereto. In this case, the first question that requires. determination is whether FLSL qualifies as a "microfinance institution" under the MIO instead of a financial institution under the FIO. If FLSL falls within the MIO framework, the FIO will not apply, and proceedings for dishonoured cheques will be governed by the MIO's scheme instead.
-
The MIO was promulgated to promote the establishment of microfinance institutions for providing organizational, financial, and infrastructural support to poor persons, particularly poor women, for mitigating poverty and promoting social welfare and economic justice through community building and social mobilization. Section 2(i) of the MIO defines a "microfinance institution" as one that provides microcredit and allied services to poor persons through sources other than public savings and deposits. Section 2(k) further defines a "poor person" as an individual whose annual income does not exceed a prescribed threshold. SBP licensing is mandatory under the MIO.
-
As discussed, FLSL is licensed by SECP as an NBFC engaged in Investment Finance Services (IFS). It does not exclusively serve "poor persons" under the MIO, nor operates as a deposit-taking Microfinance Bank (MFB) under section 2(ia) of the MIO. Since FLSL provides a broader range of financial products beyond microfinance, it does not meet the statutory criteria of a microfinance institution under the MIO. Accordingly, its classification must be considered under the FIO.
-
The scope of the FIO is fundamentally different from that of the MIO. While the MIO is a sector-specific law focused exclusively on microfinance institutions serving underprivileged and microenterprises segments, the FIO is broad in its coverage and applies to a wide range of financial institutions falling within the statutory definition of a "financial institution" under section 2(a) of the FIO. Section 4 of the FIO
CLD
6 Section 2(a) of the FIO defines "financial institution" as follows:
- Definitions.---In this Ordinance, unless there is anything repugnant in the
subject or context -(a) "financial institution" means and includes -
(i) any company whether incorporated within or outside Pakistan which transacts the business of banking or any associated or ancillary business in Pakistan through its branches within or outside Pakistan and includes a government savings bank, but excludes the State Bank of Pakistan;
(ii) a modaraba or modaraba management company, leasing company, investment bank, venture capital company, financing company, unit trust or mutual fund of any kind and credit or investment institution, corporation or company; and
(iii) any company authorized by law to carry on any similar business, as the Federal Government may by notification in the official Gazette, specify.
308
CORPORATE LAW DECISIONS
[Vol. Xx
mandates that the provisions of the FIO shall override other laws w have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained any other law for the time being in force.
1 confers civil and criminal jurisdiction on them. Section 9 outlines the 11. Section 5 of the FIO establishes Banking Courts, and section procedure for suits by a customer or a financial institution before the Banking Court for default in fulfilling an obligation with regard to any finance, Section 20 criminalizes various acts and omissions and provides punishments therefor. Section 20(4) states that:
(4) Whoever dishonestly issues a cheque towards repayment of finance or fulfillment of an obligation which is dishonoured on presentation, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year, or with fine or with both, unless he can establish, for which the burden of proof shall rest on him, that he had made arrangements with his bank to ensure that the cheque would be honoured and that the bank was at fault in not honouring the cheque.
Section 20(5) provides:
(5) Where the person guilty of an offence under this Ordinance is a company or other body corporate, the chief executive by whatever name called, and any director or officer involved shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be prosecuted against and punished accordingly.
-
Section 7(1)(b) of the FIO stipulates that in the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction, the Banking Court shall try offences punishable under the FIO and shall, for this purpose, have the same powers as are vested in the Court of Session under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. However, the Banking Court shall not take cognizance of any offence except upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the financial institution in respect of which the offence was committed. Section 7(4) further reinforces that no other court shall exercise jurisdiction over matters falling within the Banking Court's domain.
-
Section 20(6) reiterates that all offences under this Ordinance shall be triable by a Banking Court in accordance with section 7. Furthermore, all offences, except for the willful default, shall be bailable,, non-cognizable, and compoundable.
-
Not every transaction between a financial institution and its clients falls within the ambit of the FIO. They must be covered by the statutory definitions of "financial institution" and "customer" as contained in sections 2(a) and 2(c), respectively, of the FIO. CLD
2026]
Safeer Hussain v. Capital City Police Officer, Lahore (Tariq Saleem Sheikh, J)
309
Furthermore, the obligation, as defined in section 2(e), must arise specifically from a transaction that qualifies as "finance" within the meaning of section 2(d). This principle applies in both civil and criminal. cases.
-
Section 20(4) of the FIO only applies if the dishonoured cheque is issued towards repayment of finance. If it was issued in connection with a liability outside the scope of "finance" under the FIO - such as a commercial arrangement, service fee, or another form of contractual obligation then the FIO does not apply, and the jurisdiction of the Banking Court would not be attracted. In such circumstances, the case would properly fall within the domain of general criminal law (section 489-F, P.P.C.).
-
The nature of FLSL's business activities squarely falls within the ambit of the term "financial institution" under clause (i) of section 2(a) of the FIO. Accordingly, any obligations arising from financial accommodations extended by FLSL fall within the jurisdiction of the Banking Court under the FIO.
-
FLSL registered FIR No.1127/2024 dated 13.7.2024 under section 489-F, P.P.C. with the Police Station Race Course, Lahore, stating that the Petitioner obtained a "loan" from it and gave Cheque No.70580350 for Rs.15,000,000/- for its repayment which was dishonoured on presentation. Although the Petitioner denies that he committed any default, the parties acknowledge that the Petitioner is covered under the definition of "customer" and the cheque was given for B the repayment of "finance" and fulfilment of an "obligation" as defined in section 2 of the FIO.
-
Since I have concluded that FLSL is a financial institution within the meaning of section 2(a) of the FIO, and the parties admit that the cheque was issued for the repayment of finance, the alleged offence falls exclusively under section 20(4) of the FIO. Section 489-F, P.P.C. does not apply. Under section 7 of the FIO, the Banking Court has exclusive Jurisdiction over such matters. Any prosecution against the Petitioner must be initiated through a complaint before the Banking Court as prescribed under the FIO.
-
Given the above, this petition is accepted, and the impugned FIR is quashed. However, FLSL is not precluded from filing a complaint under section 7 of the FIO before the Banking Court for prosecution under section 20(4).
MH/S-30/L
Petition allowed.