2022 M L D 31

اگر ملزم نے مستغیث کو رقم کی مرحلہ وار ادائیگی کیلیے ایک ہی وقت میں مختلف تواریخ کےچیک جاری کیے ھوں تو ان چیکس کے ڈس آنر ھونے پر ان تمام چیکس کی بابت صرف ایک ھی ایف آئی آر درج ھو سکتی ہے اگر ان میں سے ایک چیک کے ڈس آنر ھونے پر ایک ایف آئی آر درج ھو جاتی ھے تو اندراج ایف آئی آر کے بعد مزید ڈس آنر ھونے والے چیکس کی بابت بھی کاروائی پہلے سے درج شدہ مقدمہ میں ہی ھو گی الگ سے ایف آئی آر درج نہ ھو گی
2022 M L D 31
[Islamabad]

HAMID KHAN
Versus
The STATE and 2 others

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)—
—O.II, R.2—Inclusion of whole claim in the plaint—Object, purpose and scope— Principle under O.II, R.2, C.P.C. is based upon concept of transparency, fair play, propriety and reasonableness—Object of such principle is that all matters in dispute between same parties arising and relating to same transaction should be disposed of in the same suit.

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)—
—S.4(l)—Investigation—Object—Duty of investigating officer is to discover incriminating evidence and to collect and establish that story of incident contained in FIR was correct—Investigating officer is not controlled or guided by contents of FIR rather it is his own authority to search for truth and he may disagree with version of FIR as it is expected from him to collect information or to record any fresh information or facts and he may arrive at its own conclusion.

(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)—
—Ss.22-A (6) & 154—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F—Dishonouring of cheque—Second FIR, quashing of—Scope—Guidelines to police officers—Petitioner/accused sought quashing of second FIR for dishonour of second cheque issued during same transaction for which earlier one FIR had already been registered—Validity—Held, second FIR could not be registered in cases of same transaction like cheques of same series originating on same cause of action, whether dishonoured or not or subsequently dishonoured after registration of first FIR—If second FIR was lodged the same should be cancelled by referring subsequent cheques through supplementary challan in first FIR/case—If second FIR was not registered and matter was pending before Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, who was dealing with the case, he could pass order/direction under S.22-A (6), Cr.P.C. to investigating officer of the first case, who had already registered the FIR or had submitted final report under S.173, Cr.P.C., to file supplementary challan in that first case on the basis of such new facts of cognizable offence emanating from the same incident / transaction like dishonoured cheque—If police officer had also registered second FIR, he could convert final report in terms of S.173, Cr.P.C. as supplementary report of first FIR while considering offence of same transaction, must submit supplementary challan in the same court without recourse to arrest of accused—Where different dishonoured cheques were still with complainant, which had not been used against same accused originating from same transaction and series of cheques, which were basis of first FIR, in such situation no further F.I.R. could be registered and police officer should not proceed in those cases, rather should refer the parties to Court of competent jurisdiction under the law by way of filing of civil suit for recovery—Officer incharge of police station should not entertain every such application of subsequent dishonoured cheque of same accused by facilitating complainant as helping in or becoming tool of recovery—Police officers were duty bound to refer the parties to Court of competent jurisdiction or directed the matter to concerned police station for recording of entire complaint in police diary with reasons that already FIR has been lodged and complainant did not disclose other cheques of same transaction due to his ill-will and mala fide—If trial of first FIR was already concluded then police officer should not register second FIR in any manner of the same transaction or series of offences which had already been adjudicated upon the basis of same set of allegations—High Court quashed second FIR as the same was abuse of process and complainant had right to recourse to remedy of recovery provided under law-