Summary: (Against order dated 29.05.2025, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 655 of 2024, passed by Single Judge High Court of Sindh, Karachi). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 173, 190 & 195---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 182---False information---Proof---Acquittal in criminal case---Petitioner after acquittal in criminal case desired to have proceedings under section 188 P.P.C. initiated against complainant of that case---Plea raised by petitioner was that complainant had given false information to police on the basis of which FIR was registered against him---Validity---Information laid before public servant with bona fide belief and knowledge of it being true cannot be termed as false, unless it is proved in accordance with law through judicial proceedings---Such information can be termed as ‘not proved’ and not ‘false’ and the same cannot attract penal provision of Section 182, P.P.C.---Provision of Section 182, P.P.C. can only be initiated by public servant before whom false information was laid, which resulted in initiation of criminal proceedings and was found to be false through judicial process---Such penal provisions cannot be invoked in cases where complainant could not prove the allegations by producing sufficient evidence or material in support of such allegation before judicial forum---There was no finding of Lower Appellate Court to the effect that information laid before police by complainant was false---There was no opinion of investigating officer and finding by any judicial forum holding that information laid before police by complainant was false, thus, provisions of Section 182, P.P.C. were not attracted---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the matter---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Kh. Muhammad Waseem v. Syed Jalees Anjum and others Criminal Petition No. 42-K of 2017; Syed Qamber Ali Shah v. Province of Sindh and others 2024 SCMR 1123; Abdur Rahman v. The State 1968 P Cr.LJ 215 and Saloni Arora v. State of NCT of Delhi AIR 2017 SC 391 rel. Abbad-ul-Hasnain, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Mushtaq Abbasi, AIG Legal and Liaquat Ali, SHO, Boat Basin, Karachi and Waseem Ahmed, IO for Respondents. Assisted by: Ms. Zainab Bashir, Judicial Law Clerk, Supreme Court of Pakistan. Date of hearing: 5th September, 2025.

Summary: Acquittal granted-----Background: The appellant was involved in three criminal cases (FIRs 01, 02, and 10 of 2022) involving charges of abduction, robbery, and a subsequent encounter with levies personnel. The appellant was convicted in all three cases by the trial courts. He was sentenced to life imprisonment under sections 365-A and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, as well as imprisonment under sections 324, 353, and 186 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The appellant challenged these convictions, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. -----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution proved the appellant’s involvement in the abduction, robbery, and encounter beyond a reasonable doubt. -----2- Whether the contradictions in the prosecution witnesses' statements and the medico-legal report cast doubt on the appellant’s guilt. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Insufficient Evidence & Identification Issues: The court found contradictions in the statements of the abductees (Hafeezullah and Munir Ahmed) regarding the identification of the appellant. One abductee identified the appellant, while the other did not, and no role was assigned to the appellant during the encounter. Additionally, there was no identification parade conducted, and reliance solely on court identification was unsafe. --Medico-Legal Contradictions: The Medico-Legal Certificate (MLC) revealed that the appellant’s injury was 1-2 days old, contradicting the prosecution's timeline, which claimed that the appellant was injured during the encounter on the same day. --Lack of Corroboration: No weapon or incriminating evidence was recovered from the appellant, and no blood samples were collected from the alleged encounter site, making the prosecution's case suspicious. Given the lack of trustworthy evidence, contradictory witness statements, and failure to connect the appellant to the crime with any incriminating evidence, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant and acquitted him of all charges. -----Citations/Precedents: Imran Ashraf v. The State (2001 SCMR 424) Majeed alias Majeedi v. The State (2014 SCMR 1430) Naveed Asghar v. The State (PLD 2021 SC 600)

Summary: Acquittal ---- Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 182, 211, 409, 380 & 454---False information with intent to cause public servant touse his lawful power to the injury of another person, false charge of offence made with intentto injure, criminal breach of trust by public servant, theft in dwelling house, lurking housetrespass or house-breaking in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment---Appreciation of evidence---Absence of mens rea---Effect---Complainant/police constable gotlodged FIR that his official Kalashnikov was stolen from his house---Prosecution case wasthat the complainant had failed to deposit the Kalashnikov with the department; that he hadembezzled the official Kalashnikov; that he got lodged a false FIR and that duringinvestigation no signs of theft were observed---Prosecution case was based uponpresumptions and assumptions---Complainant himself had reported to police station withregard to missing of official Kalashnikov from his house, thus, he discharged his liability andapparently no mens rea existed on this part---Petition was accepted, judgments passed byMagistrate and Sessions Judge were set aside and the complainant, was acquitted of thecharge.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 199--- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Alternate remedy---Petitioner assailed judgment passed by Trial Court,whereby respondent was acquitted of the charges---Validity---Remedy of appeal wasprovided under S.417, Cr.P.C. to an aggrieved person, against finding of acquittal---TrialCourt, through order in question, acquitted respondent but petitioner did not file appealagainst it, therefore, constitutional petition to the extent of acquittal of respondent was notcompetent in presence of alternate remedy.(b) Administration of justice-------Non-following of the procedure---Effect---When statute prescribes an act to be done in amanner, then it must be done as directed so, and its deviation vitiate entire proceedings. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 182 & 211---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 155, 195 & 561-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---False information to publicservant and false charge---Quashing of proceedings---Taking of cognizance---Earlier, a casewas registered by petitioner against respondent and Trial Court acquitted respondent on theground that case was false---Subsequently, on the direction of Sessions Judge, case underS.182, P.P.C. was registered against petitioner---Validity---Registration of F.I.R. by police onletter issued by District Attorney on behalf of Sessions Judge followed by investigation bypolice, at his own were not permitted by law---Such act of police was void, unlawful and trialon the basis of the same was coram non judice---Proceedings under S.182, P.P.C. could onlybe initiated on a written complaint of police officer but the section was inserted in F.I.R. on aletter from District Attorney---Offence having not been included on a written complaint ofpolice officer concerned, proceedings under S.182, P.P.C. were unlawfully initiated againstpetitioner---Proceedings under S.211, P.P.C. could only be initiated on a written complaint ofa court or by any other court to which such court was subordinate but there was no complaintin writing from Trial Court or any other court---Provisions of sections 155 and 195, Cr.P.C.were mandatory in nature, therefore, its non-compliance vitiated entire proceedings---F.I.R. registered against petitioner on the direction of Trial Court was void and illegal, henceproceedings initiated against petitioner were without jurisdiction---Order passed by SessionsJudge for registration of case was set aside and F.I.R. registered against petitioner wasquashed---Petition was allowed accordingly.

Summary: Despite discharge order police authorities may reinvestigate the matter. During pendency of complaint case, proceedings under Section 182 P.P.C. in a criminal case relating to same subject matter cannot be initiated. ----- (a) Discharge of Accused – Scope of Judicial Review ----A judicial magistrate's order to discharge an accused is not subject to interference if the discharge is legally valid and does not suffer from jurisdictional defects. In the presence of a pending private complaint for the same offence, judicial discretion to proceed with the private complaint is upheld. Key Case Law: Nur Elahi v. The State (PLD 1966 SC 708) (b) Section 182 PPC Proceedings – Timing and Restraints ----Proceedings under Section 182 PPC for false accusation cannot be initiated during the pendency of a private complaint involving the same subject matter. This principle ensures that the rights of the complainant are not prejudiced until the resolution of their private complaint. Key Judgments: M.J.A. Gazdar v. The State (1989 MLD 1694) Ashfaq Ali v. The State (PLD 1975 Karachi 87) Muhammad Murad v. The State (1983 P.Cr.L.J. 1097) (c) Reinvestigation Despite Discharge Order ----Police authorities are permitted to reinvestigate matters even after an accused is discharged by the magistrate. The reinvestigation must comply with established principles and legal standards. Key Judgments: Mian Muhammad Asif v. S.S.P. Operation, Lahore (2010 YLR 944) Habib Ur Rehman v. The State (1999 MLD 860) Ashiq Hussain v. Sessions Judge, Lodhran (PLD 2001 Lahore 271) Muzafar Ahmad v. The State (2021 P.Cr.L.J. 1393) (d) Disposition of Appeal ----The intra-court appeal challenging the dismissal of the constitutional petition was disposed of, affirming that no interference with the Single Judge’s order was necessary. The court reiterated that reinvestigation by police is permissible and that Section 182 PPC proceedings should remain on hold until the private complaint is adjudicated. -----Disposition: The Intra Court Appeal was disposed of without further orders, upholding the impugned order as legally valid and free of jurisdictional defects.

Summary: No order of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace can be passed to direct police to initiate proceedings under section 182 PPC --- There is no doubt that the Ex-officio Justice of Peace can issue directions to the police authorities, and they are bound to comply with them, but they are not subordinate to him within the contemplation of section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. Hence, he cannot direct a police officer to initiate action under section 182 PPC. --- The petitioner, accused in FIR No. 2439/2021, claimed innocence after a police investigation revealed the false nature of the FIR. Alleging a conspiracy by his ex-employee (Respondent No.5) and the owner of the enterprise (Respondent No.6), the petitioner sought proceedings under section 182 PPC against them.The court, under the Honorable Judge Tariq Saleem Sheikh, delved into the legal aspects of section 182 PPC, emphasizing its purpose to prevent individuals from providing false information to a public servant. The court cited relevant precedents, highlighting that only the concerned public servant or someone subordinate to them could file a complaint under section 182 PPC.The judgment established that the Ex-officio Justice of Peace lacked the jurisdiction to direct the police to initiate action under section 182 PPC against Respondents No.5 and 6. The court upheld the Ex-officio Justice of Peace's order of dismissal (dated 23.12.2022) and dismissed the petition, stating that the Ex-officio Justice of Peace's direction exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon him by law.