Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----Ss. 405 & 406---Criminal breach of trust---Ingredients---Property transaction---Mortgage agreement---Mere use of word “Amanat” in FIR---Effect---Complainant alleged that petitioner, being property dealer, showed him a house for mortgage owned by co-accused and, along with co-accused, received Rs.700,000 as advance out of total mortgage amount of Rs.1,200,000, but neither delivered possession nor returned amount---Supreme Court held that amount was paid in connection with a property/mortgage deal and a written agreement of mortgage had also been executed between parties---Dispute, at most, related to specific performance of mortgage agreement or recovery of amount and was of civil nature---Ingredients of S.405, PPC punishable under S.406, PPC were not attracted because neither any trust was created nor was it specified in what manner such trust was to be discharged---Mere mention of word “Amanat” in FIR would not attract S.406, PPC if ingredients of offence were otherwise absent. Cited Cases: • Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmad and 03 others 2000 SCMR 122 • Muhammad Ali and another v. Assistant Commissioner, Narowal and another 1987 SCMR 795 • Shaukat Ali Sagar v. Station House Officer, Police Station Batala Colony, Faisalabad and 5 others 2006 PCrLJ 1900 • Abdul Razzaq v. The State 1977 PCrLJ 52 • Umair Aslam v. Station House Officer and 7 others 2014 PCrLJ 1305 (b) Criminal proceedings---- ----Civil dispute converted into criminal offence---Abuse of process---Property/mortgage agreement---Complainant had paid Rs.700,000 as advance under written mortgage agreement while Rs.500,000 remained outstanding---Parties disputed which side failed to perform its obligations under agreement---Supreme Court held that proper forum for determination of such dispute was civil Court, where it could be decided which party failed to specifically perform his part of agreement---Machinery of criminal law had been mala fidely set into motion to blackmail and pressurize petitioner and co-accused by converting civil dispute into criminal offence---Such criminal proceedings amounted to abuse of process of law. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----S. 406---Contractual liability---Pledged property / commercial transaction / property deal---Criminal breach of trust not made out---Where dispute arises from contractual liability or performance of agreement, criminal proceedings under S.406, PPC are not attracted merely because money or property was delivered under transaction---In analogous cases relating to pledged jewellery, cinema canteen contract, and property sale transaction, FIRs under Ss.406/420, PPC were quashed because disputes were contractual/civil in nature and proper remedy lay before civil Court---Same principle applied to mortgage/property deal between parties in present case. Cited Cases: • Abdul Razzaq v. The State 1977 PCrLJ 52 • Muhammad Ali and another v. Assistant Commissioner, Narowal and another 1987 SCMR 795 • Umair Aslam v. Station House Officer and 7 others 2014 PCrLJ 1305 (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 249-A---Application before Trial Court---Not mandatory where no probability of conviction---Quashment of FIR---State contended that petitioner should first approach Trial Court through application under S.249-A, Cr.P.C.---Supreme Court held that where facts show no probability of conviction, directing accused to first approach Trial Court under S.249-A, Cr.P.C. would itself amount to sheer abuse of process of law and Court---FIR could be quashed in such circumstances without requiring accused to exhaust remedy under S.249-A, Cr.P.C. Cited Case: • Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmad and 03 others 2000 SCMR 122 (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 561-A---Quashment of FIR---Civil nature of dispute---Scope---Where allegations in FIR, even if accepted, disclosed only a civil dispute regarding recovery of amount or specific performance of agreement and no ingredients of criminal breach of trust were made out, continuation of criminal proceedings would be abuse of process---In such circumstances, High Court’s inherent power to quash FIR under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. could be invoked, and Supreme Court could approve/undertake quashment to prevent misuse of criminal process. (f) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 187---Complete justice---Petition seeking pre-arrest bail converted into appeal for quashment of FIR---Petitioner had approached Supreme Court for pre-arrest bail, but upon examination of record Supreme Court found that no criminal offence was made out against accused---There was no bar in converting petition into proceedings for quashment of FIR where continuation of criminal case would be abuse of process---Supreme Court exercised power under Art.187 of Constitution to do complete justice, converted petition into appeal, allowed same and quashed FIR. Cited Case: • The State through D.G., ANF Rawalpindi v. Muhammad Saleem Khan 2011 SCMR 863 (g) Criminal law---- ----Property dealer---Role of intermediary---Criminal liability under S.406, PPC---Petitioner was property dealer who introduced complainant to owner of house for mortgage transaction---There was no allegation that co-accused was not owner of house or that transaction was fake from inception---Written mortgage agreement existed between parties---Dispute regarding non-delivery of possession/non-return of advance was to be resolved through civil remedies and did not constitute criminal breach of trust against petitioner merely because he participated in property deal. Disposition: Criminal Petition No.10-L of 2026 was converted into appeal and allowed; order dated 06.01.2026 passed by Lahore High Court and order dated 09.12.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore were set aside; FIR No.3299 dated 17.10.2025 registered under S.406, PPC at Police Station Islampura, District Lahore was quashed.

Summary: (a) Islamic Law – Nikah – Competence of sui juris woman – Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, Ss. 11 & 16 – Cr.P.C., S. 561-A – A Muslim woman of sound mind and full age (sui juris) possesses legal autonomy to contract a valid marriage of her own free will without requiring the consent of a wali (guardian) – Marriage voluntarily contracted by an adult woman cannot be criminalized or treated as illicit merely for contravening familial wishes – Registration or family objection does not affect validity of Nikah under Islamic or statutory law – Followed Hafiz Abdul Waheed v. Mrs. Asma Jehangir & another (PLD 2004 SC 219). (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 – S. 561-A – Quashment of FIR – Abuse of process – FIR lodged under Ss. 11/16 Zina Ordinance against legally married couple – High Court quashed FIR on finding marriage valid and voluntary – Held, once existence of lawful Nikah is established, presumption of zina is fully negated and continuation of proceedings constitutes abuse of process – Courts are empowered to exercise inherent jurisdiction to prevent misuse of criminal law for personal or familial vengeance. (c) Islamic Jurisprudence – Proof of Zina – Standard of evidence – Under Quranic injunctions and Hudood framework, offence of zina requires testimony of four eyewitnesses to the actual act; conviction cannot rest on suspicion, conjecture, or familial disapproval – False accusation of zina is itself a punishable offence under Qur’an (Surah Al-Noor 24:4). (d) Constitutional Law – Fundamental rights – Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, Art. 3-G – Protection of dignity, privacy, and liberty – Husband and wife, being lawfully wedded, entitled to full protection of constitutional guarantees against harassment or false prosecution. (e) Administration of justice – Judicial duty – Scope of interference at investigation stage – Exceptional circumstances exist where prosecution is manifestly mala fide or devoid of legal foundation – Quashment justified to prevent miscarriage of justice and uphold sanctity of lawful marriage. Disposition: –– Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. –– High Court’s judgment quashing FIR No. 30/2025 under Ss. 11/16 Zina Ordinance upheld as lawful and justified.

Summary: (a) Companies Act (XIX of 2017)--- ----Ss.476, 477 & 497---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 154 & 561-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 419, 420, 468, 471, 408 & 409---Quashing of FIR---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Petitioners/accused sought quashing of FIR by invoking constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Held: Allegations against the petitioners were that they being coordinator and servant of a registered company while being hand in glove with each other prepared fake and fictitious rent deed and wrongfully obtained possession of the company's outlets along with wrongful dispossession of the servants of the company, thus cheated the company---When the company was a registered one and completely came within the four corners of Companies Act, 2017 ('the Act') the best course for the company was to move a complaint as required under S. 477 of the Act and not to move an application before the SHO for registration of a criminal case against the petitioners---When the law provides a mechanism for doing a thing in a particular manner, then it must be done in that way and not otherwise---Section 476 of Companies Act, 2017, provides cognizance to be taken in the case of registered companies while S. 477 provided the way of making a complaint for such offences whereas S. 497 provides the penalty /punishment for the offences committed---Section 476 of the Companies Act, being non obstante clause which excludes other provisions of the general law and full mechanism has been provided while taking the cognizance as provided under S. 497 of the Act, which is also a scheduled offence, provided in Eighth Schedule of the Act---Thus, the contents of FIR fully constituted an offence under S. 497 of the Companies Act, hence, lodging of the FIR by the local police was without any competence and was patently illegal on the face of record---Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly. Syed Mushahid Shah and others v. Federal Investigating Agency and others 2017 SCMR 1218; 2013 SCMR 85 and FIA through Director General FIA and others v. Syed Hamid Ali Shah and others PLD 2023 SC 265 rel. (b) Interpretation of statutes--- ----General and special law---Applicability---Wherever there is a special and general law applicable to a certain matter, the special law will prevail. Muhammad Iqbal others v. Nasrullah 2023 SCMR 273 and Safi-ud-Din Kazi v. Pranab Chandra Roy Choudhary PLD 1950 Dacca 37 rel. Waheed Jan Muhammad for Petitioner. Shoaib Ali, Assistant Advocate General for the State. Malik Asif Ali for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 12th February, 2025.

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 (Article 199) – Quashing of FIR – Investigation initiated with malafide intention or without jurisdiction. The High Court, under its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction, has the power to quash an FIR if it is found to be registered with malafide intent, beyond the jurisdiction of investigating authorities, or where no likelihood of conviction exists. This principle has been consistently upheld by the superior courts. (See: Anwar Ahmad Khan v. The State (1996 SCMR 24), Raja Rustam Ali Khan v. Muhammad Hanif (1997 SCMR 2008)) ------- 2. Penal provisions – Section 16 of Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 – Requirements of fear or public disorder. To attract Section 16 of the Ordinance, it must be established that the accused made a speech, statement, or act likely to cause fear, alarm, or a breach of public safety or order. Mere participation in chanting slogans, without specifics of words used or their impact, does not meet the legal threshold. (See: The Federation of Pakistan v. Saeed Ahmad Khan (PLD 1974 SC 151)) ------- 3. Penal provisions – Section 341 PPC – Wrongful restraint – Human obstruction necessary. Section 341 PPC requires that the accused voluntarily obstructed a human being to prevent their movement. Mere disruption of traffic flow does not constitute wrongful restraint unless specific individuals are identified as being obstructed. (See: Mst. Riaz Bibi v. SHO Police Station Zahirpir (2002 P Cr.LJ 530)) ------- 4. Mens rea – Absence of intent – Essential element of crime. For an act to constitute a crime, the accused must have the requisite intent (mens rea). In this case, the petitioner was participating in a peaceful rally celebrating Independence Day without evidence of intent to disrupt public peace or order. Absence of mens rea negates the charges. (See: Sir Matthew Hale’s Principles on Mens Rea, R v. Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396) ------- 5. Fundamental rights – Right to peaceful assembly – Article 16 of the Constitution. Every citizen has the right to peaceful assembly without arms, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law for public order. In the absence of Section 144 Cr.P.C. or evidence of violence or disruption, exercising this right cannot be curtailed. The impugned FIR disregarded this constitutional guarantee. (See: Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1988 SC 416)) ------- 6. Quashing of FIR – Judicial oversight over investigative process. While the courts typically avoid interfering in ongoing investigations, they are empowered to intervene in cases of clear malafide intent or where the FIR lacks legal foundation. Judicial oversight ensures the protection of fundamental rights and the prevention of misuse of authority. (See: Muhammad Irshad Khan v. NAB Chairman (2007 P Cr.LJ 1957), Muhammad Bashir v. The State (PLD 1972 SC 139)) ------- Outcome: The petition was allowed, and the impugned FIR registered under Section 16 of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, and Section 341 PPC was quashed. The court held that the FIR was based on political victimization, lacked the essential elements of the alleged offences, and violated the petitioner’s constitutional right to peaceful assembly.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 15, 20 & 199 Fundamental rights—Freedom of movement and religion—Petitioners argued that offloading passengers from an international flight and registering FIR No. 215/2024 violated their constitutional rights under Arts. 15 and 20 of the Constitution. Held, that fundamental rights are not absolute and may be lawfully restricted under specific circumstances, such as national security, public safety, or public interest. Restrictions on international travel are permissible to ensure compliance with immigration laws and international obligations, provided they are proportionate and non-discriminatory. (b) Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act, 2018 (PTPA) ----Ss. 3, 4, & 5---Trafficking in persons—Elements of coercion, fraud, or exploitation—Case involved allegations of sending individuals abroad under the guise of Umrah visas for organized begging. Held, that allegations, including financial exploitation and control over victims, prima facie satisfied the elements of trafficking under Ss. 3 and 4 of the PTPA. However, determination of whether trafficking occurred required further investigation and factual determination at trial. (c) Emigration Ordinance, 1979 ----S. 22(b)---Unauthorized emigration and exploitation—Petitioners allegedly charged individuals for fake Umrah visas without hotel bookings or return tickets. Held, that while initial facts did not conclusively justify invoking S. 22(b), the Investigating Officer could incorporate the provision if further evidence emerged during investigation. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 154 & 561-A---Quashing of FIR—Principles—FIR can be quashed only where it unequivocally fails to establish an offence or reflects clear misuse of legal authority. Supreme Court precedents emphasize that quashing an FIR during investigation disrupts the criminal justice process and should only be exercised in extraordinary circumstances. In the present case, the allegations in FIR No. 215/2024 constituted a prima facie case, and there were no grounds for quashing. (e) Vagrancy Laws ----Punjab Vagrancy Ordinance, 1958 & Punjab Destitute and Neglected Children Act, 2004—Organized beggary—Definitions and remedies—While beggary alone does not fall under the PTPA unless it involves coercion or exploitation, it may constitute an offence under the Vagrancy Ordinance or other laws addressing organized begging. Cited Cases: • Pakistan Muslim League (N) v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2007 SC 642) • Bashir Ahmad v. Zafar-ul-Islam (PLD 2004 SC 298) • Ajmeel Khan v. Abdur Rahim (PLD 2009 SC 102) • The State v. Chaudhry Muhammad Khan (2024 SC decision) ------ Disposition: Petition for quashing FIR No. 215/2024 dismissed. Held, that the investigation must proceed, and the trial court shall address the applicability of the PTPA or vagrancy laws based on evidence.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – Section 561-A – Quashment of Criminal Proceedings ---- Scope and Applicability of Section 561-A, Cr.P.C.---Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., are curative in nature and intended to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice---Inherent powers cannot replace alternate remedies provided under Sections 249-A and 265-K, Cr.P.C., but may be invoked in exceptional cases where a clear abuse of process or injustice is apparent---High Court is obligated to examine and decide quashment petitions on merits, particularly when abuse of process is alleged. (b) Abuse of Process – Doctrine and Judicial Interpretation ---- Definition and Judicial Guidelines---The doctrine of abuse of process encompasses unwarranted or irrational use of legal proceedings, including vexatious litigation, harassment, or mala fide intent---Courts must prevent misuse of judicial mechanisms and safeguard the principles of fair play and justice---Summary dismissal of quashment petitions without addressing substantive grounds raised amounts to a failure of judicial duty. (c) Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 – Section 3 & 5 – Investigation and Cognizance ---- Quashment of Proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005---Section 3 prohibits illegal occupation, grabbing, or control of immovable property without lawful authority---Section 5 provides the procedure for investigation and cognizance by the trial court---Cognizance by a trial court does not preclude the High Court from exercising its inherent powers under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., to review the legitimacy and fairness of proceedings initiated under the Act. (d) Quashment Petition – Duty of the High Court ---- Obligation to Examine Merits of Quashment Petitions---High Court must not dismiss quashment petitions summarily without considering the grounds raised, particularly where multiple pending civil suits or ongoing civil disputes are involved---Dismissal solely on the ground that cognizance has been taken by the trial court is insufficient and reflects a failure to exercise judicial discretion properly. ----- Cited Cases: Shahnaz Begum v. Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan (PLD 1971 SC 677) R. v. Power ([1994] 1 S.C.R. 601) R. v. Scott ([1990] 3 S.C.R. 979) Disposition: Criminal Petition converted into an appeal and allowed. The impugned order of the High Court was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the High Court for fresh adjudication on merits after issuing notice to all parties. The High Court is directed to address the grounds raised in the quashment petition comprehensively.

Summary: The Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that FIRs cannot be quashed once a challan has been filed, affirming the limited scope for judicial intervention during the investigative process. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi emphasized that "quashment of FIR during investigation tantamounts to throttling the investigation, which is not permissible in law," underlining that such judicial powers are reserved for truly exceptional cases. ------ - Key Points of the Judgment include: ------ 1) Judicial and Investigative Roles Are Distinct: Justice Rizvi highlighted the complementary, non-overlapping roles of the judiciary and law enforcement, stating that law enforcement is obligated under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to investigate cognizable offences. Courts should not interfere with this duty unless the case is extraordinary. ------ 2) Concurrent Civil and Criminal Proceedings: The judgment clarified that a concurrent civil dispute does not preclude criminal proceedings. Justice Rizvi referenced precedent, stating that "a criminal case must be allowed to proceed on its own merits, regardless of any parallel civil matters." Criminal and civil cases can coexist and be adjudicated independently. ------ 3) Grounds for Quashment Must Be Exceptional: FIR quashment is only permissible if there is clear evidence of misuse of legal authority or if the allegations lack legal basis. Justice Rizvi noted that concerns over conviction probability should be handled within trial proceedings and not preempt the investigation. ----- 4) No Premature Judicial Intervention: The Court emphasized that quashing an FIR should not impede the police's statutory role in evidence gathering. Interference should be limited to cases where allegations unequivocally indicate no offence or a clear abuse of process. ------ This case involves Civil Petitions No. 671-L and 672-L of 2017, where the State challenged the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench’s decision to quash FIR No. 58/2012. This FIR, registered on August 2, 2012, alleged that the respondents fraudulently transferred significant state land in Tehsil Jalalpur to private persons using forged orders from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. An inquiry by the Anti-Corruption Establishment (ACE) revealed irregularities, leading to FIR registration. However, the respondents contended that the FIR was baseless and filed with malafide intent, ultimately convincing the High Court to quash it. ------Issues ------1) Whether the High Court erred in quashing an FIR involving alleged fraudulent land transfers under Article 199 of the Constitution. ------2) Whether the existence of a civil dispute negates the necessity for criminal proceedings. ------3) Whether the High Court’s quashing of the FIR was justified based on the improbability of conviction. ------Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, finding that quashing the FIR was improper. Key points of reasoning include: The High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 199 to quash FIRs is limited to cases where the FIR is evidently without legal basis or constitutes an abuse of legal authority. Criminal proceedings should not be prematurely quashed, especially when material evidence supports a cognizable offense. The existence of a civil dispute does not preclude criminal liability; both civil and criminal proceedings can proceed concurrently if the facts disclose a criminal offense. Probable conviction or acquittal is a matter for trial courts to decide, and without strong evidence of malafide intent by investigative authorities, the FIR should not have been quashed at this stage. ------Citations/Precedents Ajmeel Khan v. Abdul Rahim and others (PLD 2009 SC 102) – On the complementary roles of judiciary and police and the conditions under which an FIR may be quashed. FIA, Director General FIA and others v. Syed Hamid Ali Shah and others (PLD 2023 SC 265) – Reaffirming the High Court’s power to quash FIRs when the allegations do not constitute a cognizable offense. Seema Fareed and Others v. The State and another (2008 SCMR 839) – Civil disputes do not bar criminal proceedings if criminal liability is indicated. Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2021 SC 5041) – Guidelines on judicial restraint in staying investigations and quashing FIRs in India. Mst. Tayyeba Ambareen v. Shafqat Ali Kiyani (2023 SCMR 246), Amir Jamal v. Malik Zahoor-ul-Haq (2011 SCMR 1023), Fida Hussain v. Mst Saiqa (2011 SCMR 1990) – High Court’s limited scope under Article 199 in cases requiring factual determinations. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, thereby reinstating the FIR for investigation and trial.

Summary: Background: The case stems from a dispute over the alleged fraudulent transfer of state land located in Tehsil Jalalpur, Punjab, through fabricated orders purportedly issued in 1993 by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. This land, totaling 7,062 Kanals and 11 Marlas, was transferred via fraudulent mutations in 1998, based on allegedly forged documents prepared by certain revenue officials. An inquiry confirmed the illegality of these transactions, leading to the registration of FIR No. 58/2012. The respondents sought and obtained relief from the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which quashed the FIR on the grounds that it was a civil matter and lacked the probability of conviction. The State then challenged this order, arguing that the FIR should not have been quashed under Article 199 of the Constitution. -----Issues: 1- Can an FIR be quashed on the grounds of a civil dispute between the parties? -----2- Does the existence of a civil stay order impact the validity of criminal proceedings under the Anti-Corruption Act? -----3- Is the probability of conviction a valid basis for quashing an FIR? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The Court held that: Criminal and civil proceedings can coexist, and a civil dispute does not preclude criminal liability if a cognizable offense is indicated. The FIR cannot be quashed solely due to the existence of a related civil dispute. The stay order in the civil proceedings did not prohibit the authorities from conducting an inquiry or registering an FIR as it was meant to prevent coercive actions but did not restrict the legal obligation to investigate a cognizable offense. The potential for conviction is a matter for the trial court to assess and is not a sufficient ground to quash the FIR preemptively, as this would impede due process. High Court intervention to quash an FIR is reserved for cases where the registration of the FIR is evidently a misuse of authority or legally unjustified. Based on these findings, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order quashing the FIR. -----Citations/Precedents Ajmeel Khan v. Abdul Rahim and others (PLD 2009 SC 102) FIA, Director General FIA v. Syed Hamid Ali Shah and others (PLD 2023 SC 265) Seema Fareed and Others v. The State and another (2008 SCMR 839) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi (AIR 2021 SC 5041) Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra Mst. Tayyeba Ambareen and another v. Shafqat Ali Kiyani and another (2023 SCMR 246) Amir Jamal and others v. Malik Zahoor-ul-Haq and others (2011 SCMR 1023) Fida Hussain v. Mst Saiqa and others (2011 SCMR 1990)

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — Ss. 144, 260, 262, 561-A — Encroachment on State land — Violation of prohibitory order — Summary trial — Quashment petition — Scope — Petitioners convicted by Executive Magistrate under S. 144, Cr.P.C. for unauthorized construction on State (Khalisa) land in violation of a prohibitory order — Conviction maintained by Sessions Judge with sentence reduced from 20 to 3 days — Petition under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. filed before High Court seeking acquittal — Held, Executive Magistrate conducted trial in accordance with S. 262, Cr.P.C. and no illegality or jurisdictional defect found — Petitioners failed to produce any lawful title or allotment — No exceptional ground made out for interference — Quashment petition dismissed. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — S. 561-A — Invocation of inherent jurisdiction — Principles — Inherent powers of High Court under S. 561-A can only be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances such as where proceedings are shown to be wholly without jurisdiction, abuse of process, or where no offence is made out — Mere dissatisfaction with findings of courts below or mitigation of sentence not sufficient ground — Petitioners failed to demonstrate miscarriage of justice or abuse of process — No illegality found in trial procedure — Petition dismissed. (c) Summary trial — Magistrate’s power — Validity — Executive Magistrate was empowered under S. 260, Cr.P.C. to try offence in summary manner — Procedure adopted for trial was in accordance with law — Petitioners did not point out any procedural violation or prejudice suffered — Conviction held to be valid. Disposition: Petition under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. dismissed — Conviction and sentence of three days’ imprisonment upheld — No abuse of process or legal infirmity found in summary trial or appellate proceedings.

Summary: Background: The petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR No. 79/2024, alleging violations under Sections 23, 27(1), and 27(4) of the Drugs Act, 1976, read with Section 27 of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP) Act, 2012. The prosecution claimed that the petitioner and co-accused illegally traded unregistered and spurious drugs. Following an inspection by the Drug Controller in coordination with the FIA, ten varieties of therapeutic goods were seized, leading to the FIR's registration. -----Issues: 1- Whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings were lawfully initiated, considering the procedural requirements under the Drugs Act and DRAP Act. ----2- Whether the lack of a show cause notice and hearing under Rule 5(3) of the Drug Rules invalidated the FIR and subsequent actions. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court quashed FIR No. 79/2024 and ordered the petitioner’s release, reasoning that: The Drugs Act and DRAP Act establish a procedural framework mandating that suspected violations be referred to the Provincial or District Quality Control Board (DQCB) for review before initiating prosecution. This process includes issuing a show cause notice and providing the accused with an opportunity for a hearing under Rule 5(3) of the Drugs Rules. The court found that these procedural requirements were not followed in this case, rendering the proceedings coram non judice and without lawful authority. As such, the court remitted the matter to the DQCB for denovo proceedings, directing them to issue a show cause notice and conduct a hearing in accordance with Rule 5(3) of the Drugs Rules. -----Citations/Precedents: Chairman, National Accountability Bureau v. Nisar Ahmed Pathan (PLD 2022 SC 475) Province of Punjab v. M/s Flow Pharmaceuticals (Pvt) Ltd. (2021, unreported) Muhammad Anwar and others v. Mst. Ilyas Begum and others (PLD 2013 SC 255) Syed Raza Hussain Bukhari v. The State and others (PLD 2022 SC 743) FIA through Director General v. Syed Hamid Ali Shah and others (PLD 2023 SC 265) Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (PLD 1973 SC 236) Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaza and others v. Member Judicial Board of Revenue (2014 SCMR 914)