2026 M L D 457

 2026 M L D 457

[Sindh]

Before Muhammad Hasan (Akber), J

MUHAMMAD JAVED ASLAM and 2 others---Applicants

Versus

The STATE and 3 others---Respondents

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1180 of 2024, decided on 3rd

October, 2025.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----Ss. 22-A & 561-A---Powers of Justice of Peace under S. 22-A, Cr.P.C.---

Scope---Petition filed under S. 22-A, Cr.P.C, by the

complainant/respondent for the registration of criminal case against

the petitioners was allowed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace---

Validity---Complainant alleged that petitioners issued cheques on the

pretext of business deal to him but were dishonoured when

presented before the bank concerned---Record reflected that cheque,

which was the subject matter of instant application, was issued by

Poultry International, which belonged to the present applicants---Said

cheque was dated 13.10.2023 and the dishonoured memo issued by

the bank showed that it was presented in the Bank for encashment on

05.06.2024 i.e. after a clear lapse of more than six months---Stale

cheque was a cheque that had been outstanding for an unreasonable

time---Cheque may be outstanding for more than six months and a

bank may under its discretion refuse to honour such a cheque---In the

case in hand, the subject cheque was drawn on 13.10.2023 and was

presented in the Bank for encashment on 05.06.2024, clearly after a

delay of more than six months---Ex-Officio Justice of Peace ought to

have applied its mind before allowing the application in a mechanical

manner under S.22-A & B, Cr.P.C and directing the SHO to register FIR

against the applicants based upon a stale cheque---Use of the word

"may" in S.22-A(6), Cr.P.C., clearly made the jurisdiction of an Ex-

Officio Justice of the Peace as discretionary in nature, which was

required to be exercised with caution and restraint and not in a

mechanical manner---Criminal Miscellaneous Application was

allowed, accordingly.

Noor Ahmad v. The State and others 2020 YLR 2064; Muhammad

Ashraf v. The State and others 2015 PCr.LJ 1050; Anwaar Masood Khan

v. State and others 2018 PCr.LJ 469; Altaf-ur-Rehman v. State and

another PLJ 2018 Cr.C. 532; Shafaqat Hussain Hashmi v. The State 2012 MLD 1551; Sajid Irtaza v. Additional Sessions Judge Lahore and 2

others 2021 PCr.LJ 1071; Col. (R) Mukarram Ali Shah v. The State and

another PLD 2025 Sindh 63; Habib Bank Limited v. Jamilur Rehman

1994 MLD 271; Griffiths v. Dalton (1940) 2 KB 264; Kamran Akhter v.

Jawed Ahmed Khan 2005 CLC 797; Rekha Rani Pyne v. Sambhunath

Halder 2000 (4) ICC 228; Stanley Barros Pereira v. Julieta Cota e

Clemente and others 2006(2)GOA L.R 287; Arunbhai Nilkanthrai

Nanavati v. Jayaben Prohlad Bhai 2000 Crl. LJ 1152 and Khizer Hayat v.

Inspector-General of Police (Punjab), Lahore PLD 2005 Lah. 470 rel.

Imtiaz Ali Shah for Applicants.

Zahoor Shah, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh, for the State.

Date of hearing: 25th September, 2025.

ORDER

MUHAMMAD HASAN (AKBER), J.---Applicants have impugned the

Order dated 11.11.2024 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application

No.4000 of 2024 whereby learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/Additional

Sessions Judge-X, Karachi South directed the SHO of Police Station

Mithadar to record the Statement of applicant/Respondent No.4 under

Section 154, Cr.P.C., if a cognizable offence is made out.

2. Brief allegations raised by the complainant/ Respondent No.4 are

that in the month of October 2022 the present applicants visited his

office and disclosed that they are partners of Poultry International and

are running business of poultry and eggs; other applicants supplied

corn for Rs.88,00,000/-, in security whereof applicants provided him

cheques Nos.36842405 of Rs. 15,00,000/-, dated 28.11.2022 and 36842406

of Rs.45,00,000/- dated 13.10.2023, D12651786 of Rs. 4,00,000/- dated

14.10.2023. The said cheques were dishonoured upon presentation due

to insufficient funds. Due to business relations amongst parties,

respondent No.4 waited and then lodged this application for

registration of FIR, which was allowed vide Order impugned.

3. Applicants learned counsel argued that there were seven

respondents made in the application filed by the complainant, whereas

the present three applicants are partners in M/s. Poultry International

and two cheques including the present cheque No.D12651786 for Rs.

4,00,000/- dated 14.10.2023 was issued by the said firm as security in

sale and purchase transaction of poultry and eggs. Per learned counsel,

the said amount was clearly repaid, receipts whereof are also attached

with the present application, however under mala fide intentions, the

said cheques were not returned to the applicants. It was categorically

stated, that the present applicants have no concern whatsoever with

the other proposed accused Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Zeeshan Nawaz, who had issued the other two cheques. It was lastly

argued that the impugned order was passed in a mechanical manner,

without considering all these facts and without appreciating the

material available on record; that there remains no financial obligation

on their part towards respondent No.4; that the subject cheque had

become stale and was presented after more than six months. It was

lastly prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has supported the Order

impugned.

5. Heard and perused. Record reflects that Cheques Nos.36842405

dated 28.11.2022 and Cheque No.36842406 dated 13.10.2023 were

issued by one Muhammad Zeeshan Nawaz, whereas Cheque

No.12651786 dated 13.10.2023 which is the subject matter of instant

application, was issued by Poultry International, which belongs to the

present applicants. The said cheque was dated 13.10.2023 and the

dishonoured memo. issued by the bank shows that it was presented in

the Bank for encahment on 05.06.2024 i.e. after a clear lapse of more

than six months.

6. The term stale cheque , was defined in the case of Noor Ahmad as

used in the Banking Glossary issued by the State Bank of Pakistan, in

the following terms:

"Stale Cheque: A stale cheque is a cheque that has been outstanding

for an unreasonable time. A cheque may be outstanding for more

than six months and a bank may under its discretion refuse to

honour such a cheque. A bank is under no obligation to a

customer to pay a cheque, other than a certified cheque, after

more than six months of its date, but it can charge its customer's

account for a payment made thereafter in good faith."

7. A brief study of the case law developed in Pakistan on the subject

in the criminal jurisdiction takes us to the following position:

i. In the cases of Noor Ahmad

[1]

ibid, Muhammad Ashraf

[2]

, Anwar

Masood Khan

[3]

and Altafur Rahman

[4]

pre-arrest bails in

proceedings under section 489-F, P.P.C. were granted to the

accused on the premise that the concerned cheques were

presented to the bank after more than six months and had

become stale.

ii. In Shafqat Hussain Hashmi

[5]

case, criminal proceedings were

quashed, which were initiated based upon dishonour of a stale

cheque presented after six months of its validity. iii. In the case of Sajid Irtaza

[6]

and Col.(R) Mukarram Ali Shah

[7]

registration of FIR was disallowed on the same basis that the

cheque had become stale before presentation.

iv. Even in the civil jurisdiction, the concept has been recognized.

Hence, in the case of HBL

[8]

and while placing reliance on

Griffiths

[9]

decree in civil proceedings against dishonour of

cheque was set-aside on the ground that after the lapse of period

of six months the cheque becomes stale. Same principles were

followed in Kamran Akhter

[10]

.

8. Identical instances in the Indian jurisdiction in criminal

proceedings concerning stale cheques could be found in, Rekha Rani

Pyne

[11]

, Stanley Barros Pereira

[12]

and Arunbhai Nanavati

[13]

cases.

9. Turning to the case in hand, the subject cheque was drawn on

13.10.2023 and was presented in the Bank for encashment on

05.06.2024, clearly after a delay of more than six months. The learned

Ex-Officio Justice of Peace ought to have applied its mind and the

above-discussed principles before allowing the application in a

mechanical manner under sections 22-A and B, Cr.P.C and directing the

SHO to register FIR against the applicant based upon a stale cheque.

The use of the word "may" in section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. clearly makes the

jurisdiction of an Ex-officio Justice of the Peace as discretionary in

nature, which is required to be exercised with caution and restraint

and not in a mechanical manner, as held in Khizer Hayat

[14]

case.

10. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, this

appears to be a fit case for interference in the impugned Order.

Consequently, this Criminal Miscellaneous Application is allowed and

the impugned Order dated 11.11.2024 passed by learned Ex-Officio

Justice of Peace, Karachi South, only to the extent of Cheque

No.12651786 dated 13.10.2023, is set-aside.

JK/M-124/Sindh Application allowed.