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: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -Ss. 22-A & 22-B-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.182-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199-Constitutional petition-Powers and duties of Justice of Peace-Petitioner had assailed order of Justice of Peace whereby on the application filed by petitioner for registration of a case against respondents under Ss.22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C., Justice of Peace, after passing dismissal order of the application, directed S.H.O. concerned to initiate proceedings under S.182, P.P.C. against the petitioner-Justice of Peace could only pass an order directing registration of a criminal case if a cognizable offence was made out from the application or decline the same-Direction given to S.H.O. by Ex-officio Justice of Peace to initiate proceedings against petitioner under S.182, P.P.C. was beyond the purview of S.22-A, Cr.P.C. and in excess of jurisdiction conferred upon him under the law-Order of Justice of Peace to the extent of direction given to S.H.O. to initiate proceedings under S. 182, P.P.C. against petitioner, was set aside.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -S. 182-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the complaint filed by the District Magistrate against the accused under S. 182, P.P.C. was competent. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -S. 182-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 195(1)(a) - Deputy Commissioner had taken action and judiciously investigated the matter on the complaint filed by the accused before the Commissioner which was found to be false-Commissioner, therefore, should not have necessarily filed the complaint under S.182, P.P.C. against the accused-Proceedings under S. 182, P.P.C. taken against the accused on the complaint of the Deputy Commissioner, held, were legally valid without any infringement of the provisions of S.195(1)(a), Cr.P.C. Malik Muhammad Sadiq v. The State 1977 PCr.LJ 445; Mst. Nawab Begum v. The State 1972 PCr.LJ 79; Ali Ahmad v. The State 1984 PCr.LJ 772; The State v. Syed Sardar Shah Bukhari PLD 1975 Lah. 1407; Nasim Akhtar Soofi v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 336; Abdul Hanan v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 777; Muhammad Boota Anjum v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 1538; Nizamuddin Samejo v. S.D.M. 1988 PCr.LJ 988; Sher Muhammad v. Emperor AIR 1940 Lah. 15; Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1962 SC 1206; Ashfaq Ahmad. Cheema v. The State 1985 PCr.LJ 2104 and Sheo Prasad v. State AIR 1959 All. 378 ref.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 157 read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161 and Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(7) - Registration and investigation of case of cognizable offence-Police Officer receiving written complaint containing information of commission of offence under S. 161, P. P. C. and S. 5(7), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947Bound to register case-Police Officer although can refuse investigation under S. 157(1)(b), Cr. P. C. yet in obedience to S. 157(2) must record his reasons for such refusal and also notify his refusal to informant. On receipt of a written complaint from the petitioner alleging that an A. S. I. of Police had taken Rs. 100 from him under threat of opening history sheet against him, the Police Officer, without registering a case properly made oral inquiry on the spot and finding the complaint as baseless prosecuted the petitioner under S. 182, P. P. C. Held, it was obligatory on the Police Officer to have registered a case on receipt of the information contained in the application received by him. However, it was not incumbent upon the Police Officer to have investigated the offences if in view of section 157(1)(b) it appeared to him that there was no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation. But even in that case Police Officer in obedience to the provisions of section 157(2), Cr. P. C. had to state in a report his reasons for not fully complying with the re4uirements of subsection (1)(b) of section 157 and must have forthwith notified the informant the fact that he will not investigate the case, or cause it to be investigated. Subsection (1) of section 4, Cr. P. C. defines investigation to include "all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer………..". The expression `collection of evidence conducted by a police officer' in this section of the Code is a short way of saying, `collection of material to be used as evidence conducted by a police officer'. It was incumbent on Police Officer that on receipt of information of the commission of offences under section 161, P. P. C. and section 5(7) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, contained in the petitioner's application to have registered a case of criminal charge against the official complained against. Although he could have refused to investigate the same but it was obligatory on him to have notified his refusal to the informant, say petitioner, and further that he should have entered the information in the station diary. Non-compliance of these legal provisions, has caused prejudice to the petitioner. Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor A I R 1936 P C 253 (2); Ghulam Abbas v. The State P L D 1968 Lah: 101; Re: Shark Kalesha A I R 1957 And. Prad. 268; Re: A. F. G. Price v. Emperor A I R 1937 Lah. 160; H. N. Rishbud and another v. State of Delhi A I R 1955 S C 196 and The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mubarak Ali A I R 1959 S C 707 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 244(1) & 342-Section 342 applicable to warrant case as well as to summons case-Non-hearing of accused in summons case after close of prosecution evidence and before examination of defence evidence-Illegality fatal to trial-[Re: Ponnuswami Odayar and others v. Ramasami Thathan A I R 1924 Mad. 15; Emperor v. Nga La Gyi and another A I R 1931 Rang. 244; Kale Khan and others v. King-Emperor A I R 1927 Lah. 268 and Shadi Khan v. Mst. Gul Begum A I R 1927 Lah. 435(1) dissented from]. Where the accused facing trial under section 182, P. P. C. was not given an opportunity of being heard by the Magistrate under section 244(1), Cr. P. C. after close of prosecution evidence and before recording the defence evidence it was held that the general trend of opinion of all other Courts is that this section 342 applies equally to summons cases as well as to warrant cases and that the words"if he thinks fit" in section 245 have reference to cases in which the Magistrate is prepared to acquit the accused, even on a consideration of the prosecution evidence as it stands, without calling on the accused for his defence and without hearing him. By-passing the stage of hearing the accused and rushing to ask him to enter upon his defence is illegality not of a trivial kind. Thus the non-hearing of the accused-petitioner under section 244, Cr. P. C. after the close of the prosecution evidence and before the examination of the defence evidence, which is mandatory, by the trial Court, has resulted in miscarriage of justice which is fatal to the trial of the petitioner in a summons case. Re: Qazi and Khatib Mohamud Khan v. Emperor A I R 1945 Nag. 127; Gulabjan v. Emperor, A I R 1922 Bom. 290; Mastan Singh and another v. The State A I R 1953 Papsu 125; Emperor v. Janardhan Kashirath A I R 1931 Born. 195 and Emperor v. Nabu A I R 1926 Sind 1(2) rel. Re: Ponnuswami Odayar and others v. Ramasami Thathan A I R 1924 Mad. l5; Emperor v. Nga La Gyi and another A I R 1931 Rang. 244; Kale Khan and others v. King-Emperor A I R 1927 Lah. 268 and Shadi Khan v. Mst. Gul Begum A I R 1927 Lah. 435(1) dissented from. N. M. Khan for the State.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 195-Magistrate serving show-cause notice on A (who had given alleged false information) why complaint under S. 182, P. P. C. be not lodged against him-A in showing cause entitled to lead evidence-Complaint could only be lodged after Magistrate had prima facie found that information was deliberately false. If a person is directed to show cause why a complaint under section 182, P. P. C. should not be filed against him and he pleads that he had made the report under misapprehension, he is entitled to lead evidence to that effect and a complaint can be lodged only after the Magistrate came to a prima facie conclusion that the information given was deliberately false. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 195-Officer making complaint has to make up his own mind-Magistrate filing complaint under orders of Deputy Commissioner-Complaint liable to be quashed. A Magistrate bad filed a complaint under section 182, P.-P. C. under the directions of the Deputy Commissioner. Held, that on this sole ground the complaint could be quashed because the officer who makes a complaint has to make up his own mind. He cannot file a complaint under the orders of someone else. In that case it is that other person who is filing the complaint and he had no authority to do so. (c) Tort-False imprisonment-Burden of proof-Plaintiff to prove imprisonment-Defendant to prove justification. Halsbury's Laws of England Para. 67, Vol. 33, Second Edition. (d) Judicial Officers' Protection Act (XVIII of 1850), S. 1Application-Belief in good faith-Explained-Onus to prove good faith-Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 106. If the judicial officer had jurisdiction to make the order of arrest or detention which is made the basis of a suit by the person arrested or detained, there is no cause of action for the suit. If, on the other hand, such jurisdiction did not exist the question as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages will be decided in accordance with the proviso to the section, i.e., if the judicial officer believed in good faith that he had jurisdiction to do or order the act complained of he will not be liable in damages. Belief in good faith referred to in the section has been held to be a belief based on reasonable grounds. "A belief based on no probable or plausible grounds, and arrived at inconsiderately and without due enquiry, cannot be considered a belief in good faith within the meaning of the Act, which has been construed to require reasonable care and attention in the performance of official duty on the part of one who does or orders the act complained of." The defendant, therefore, has to show either that he had jurisdiction or that he had reasonable grounds for believing that he had jurisdiction. The onus as to there being grounds for reasonable belief would be on him, on the wording of section 1 in which this protection - appears in the form of a proviso, as also on account of section 106 of the Evidence Act which provides that the onus of proving a fact within the special knowledge of a person is on him. Collector of Sea Customs v. P. Chithambaram I L R 1 Mad. 89 and Emperor v. Muktar A I R 1944 Cal. 4 ref. Where a Magistrate had ordered arrest of a person allegedly under the provisions of National Calamities Act, without reading the Act or without referring to any section of the Act in the warrant, the, case was not held to fall under proviso to S. 1, Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 64-Application-Magistrate can order arrest only where what he sees appears to him to be prima facie an offence at time he sees it. Section 64 will apply only where the Magistrate sees something which prima facie at the time appears to him to be an offence. It does not apply to a case where at the time he did not know at all that an offence was being committed but subsequently on evidence which he examined he came to the conclusion that what had been done in his presence was an offence. Section 64, Cr. P. C. is not intended to apply to a case where a Magistrate seeing an act being done does not know that some offence is being committed. At the same time, the section only applies to a case where the accused himself is present. Then the Magistrate can himself arrest or order his arrest. The section does not justify the issue of a warrant against an absent accused on the basis of evidence examined by the Magistrate. If the Magistrate has to issue a warrant only after examining witnesses and coming to a conclusion he can do so not under section 64 but if he takes cognizance of the offence. (f) Judicial Officers' Protection Act (XVIII of 1850), S. 1, proviso-Magistrate on account of annoyance issuing in first instance non-bailable warrant of arrest for offence under section 182, P. P. C. without there being a complaint before him-Proviso held inapplicable. (g) Damages-Measure-False imprisonment-No yard stick-Suit brought more for vindication of honour than money-Rs. 500 awarded in suit for Rs. 20,000. Dates of hearing: 15th, 16th and 17th June 1960.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- Ss. 4 (h) and 195 (1) (a)-Magistrate himself reluctant but lodging complaint under section 182, P. P. C. on the advice of District Magistrate-Complaint not invalid. The fact that the Magistrate, who had lodged a complaint under section 182, P. P. C., had himself been of the opinion that the contemplated proceedings should be dropped, nevertheless had made the complaint after consultation with the District Magistrate, did not render the complaint invalid in view of provisions of clause(a) of subsection (1) of section 195, Criminal P. C. Gokulchand Dwarkadas v. The King P L D 1948 P C 11 and Bapu v. Bapu I L R 39 Mad. 750 distinguished. (b) Criminal proceedings- -Quashing of, pending civil proceedings on same facts-Not advisable unless upon ground of a formal and legal defect in complaint. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- S. 526-Transfer of case-Reasonable apprehension that accused will not get justice-Case under S. 182, P. P. C. started by a Magistrate and pending in Court of Additional District Magistrate of same district.

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.