👋 Welcome, visitor from Columbus, US!

← All Case Highlights

Writ not maintainable when matter is sub-judice

PLJ 2011 Lahore 141 · Lahore High Court

This case was about a man, Ch. Abdur Rehman, who went to the Lahore High Court asking it to order the FIA (Federal Investigation Agency) to launch a criminal inquiry against various bank officials. He alleged they had prepared fake revenue records and a bogus passbook, and issued dummy loans for their own private business.

The bank officials opposed the petition, arguing it was premature and improper because the petitioner had several other legal routes available to him: complaining to the Banking Ombudsman, filing a complaint before the Special Court under banking law, approaching a Justice of Peace under the Criminal Procedure Code, or suing under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance. In fact, he had already filed a recovery-related suit in the Banking Court at Sargodha, which was still pending (it had been dismissed, then an appeal was accepted and the case sent back for fresh decision). They argued he was simply trying to avoid repaying his loans by pressuring the bank through this petition.

The High Court agreed with the respondents. It held that courts cannot order registration of a criminal case or inquiry under their constitutional writ jurisdiction when other adequate legal remedies exist, and especially not when the same matter is already pending (sub-judice) before another court. Since the underlying dispute was still before the Banking Court, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

This ruling reinforces the principle that writ petitions are a last resort, not a shortcut when other legal avenues are open or already in use.

یہ مقدمہ چوہدری عبدالرحمٰن نامی ایک شخص سے متعلق تھا جو لاہور ہائی کورٹ گیا تاکہ عدالت ایف آئی اے (فیڈرل انویسٹی گیشن ایجنسی) کو حکم دے کہ وہ مختلف بینک حکام کے خلاف فوجداری تحقیقات شروع کرے۔ اس کا الزام تھا کہ ان حکام نے جعلی ریونیو ریکارڈ اور ایک جعلی پاس بک تیار کی تھی اور اپنے ذاتی کاروبار کے لیے دکھاوے کے قرضے جاری کیے تھے۔

بینک حکام نے اس درخواست کی مخالفت کی اور یہ موقف اختیار کیا کہ یہ درخواست قبل از وقت اور غیرمناسب ہے کیونکہ درخواست گزار کے پاس کئی دیگر قانونی راستے موجود تھے، جیسے بینکنگ محتسب کے پاس شکایت درج کروانا، بینکنگ قانون کے تحت خصوصی عدالت میں شکایت دائر کرنا، ضابطہ فوجداری کے تحت جسٹس آف پیس سے رجوع کرنا، یا فنانشل انسٹیٹیوشنز (ریکوری آف فنانسز) آرڈیننس کے تحت مقدمہ دائر کرنا۔ درحقیقت، وہ پہلے ہی سرگودھا کی بینکنگ کورٹ

Read the full judgment →

WhatsAppFacebookX / Twitter
🖼️ Download social media graphic