Ahsan Idrees vs Judge Banking Court No — 2025 CLD 1095 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Ahsan Idrees VS Judge Banking Court No.V, Lahore S.20---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 344, 249-A & 265-K---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 under S.265-K of Cr.P.C. seeking their acquittal at any stage---Section 265-K of Cr.P.C. provides jurisdiction to Trial Court to discharge/acquit an accused if it considers that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of the offence---In the present case, the petitioners instead of exhausting any of such adequate efficacious remedies available to them, had opted to approach the High Court directly by invoking the provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution ---A constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is not maintainable when a person has an adequate, efficacious alternate remedy--- In light of the availability of an alternate remedy to the petitioners under S.344 or 265-K of the Cr.P.C. and in the absence of any compelling reasons with the petitioners to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court the present petition could not be entertained---Constitutional petition, being non-maintainable, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Ahsan Idrees vs Judge Banking Court No — 2025 CLD 1095 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLD