Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 249-A, 265-K and 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 448, 427 & 34---Quashing of proceedings---Scope---Allegation that complainant got the FIR against the accused/applicant with sole aim to deprive the applicant from inheritance and that the accused/applicant was colouring the civil dispute into criminal solely to pressurize the applicant and illegal investigation was carried out against the applicant, which required quashing of the same---Validity---Remedy provided under S.561-A, Cr.P.C., could not be construed as an alternate remedy or substitute for an express remedy provided under Ss. 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C., as the case maybe---Therefore, the ordinary remedy provided under the law could not be bypassed or circumvented---Section 249-A,Cr.P.C.,provided the powers of the Magistrate to acquit an accused at any stage of the case if, after hearing the prosecutor and the accused and for reasons to be recorded, it is considered that the charge was groundless or that there was no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence---Likewise, S.265-K, Cr.P.C., also vested in the Court (Sessions Court or High Court) the powers to acquit the accused at any stage of the case, if, after hearing the prosecutor and the accused and for reasons to be recorded, itis considered that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence---However, according to the judicial consensus and unanimity matured on the characteristics of inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under S.561-A, Cr.P.C., it is well-established that the inherent jurisdiction so conferred is curative in nature---In fact, the expression "abuse of process" used under S.561-A, Cr.P.C., connotes an unwarranted or irrational use of legal proceedings or process which also includes the presence of ulterior motives for activating the process for unjustified arrest or groundless criminal prosecution---Essential purposefulness of this doctrine is to foster and safeguard the judicial system, ensuring that it is not misused or blemished---This terminology can be comprehended as an acuity that if a Court has jurisdiction to hear a case, it may terminate the prosecution if an abuse of process is floating on the surface on record, with logical reason and probability of exasperation, persecution and unfairness to the opposite side----Applicant had already availed his remedy under the prescriptions of S.249-A,Cr.P.C., before the Judicial Magistrate and that too had already been dismissed, which fact was also admitted by the counsel for the applicant during the course of arguments, thus, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application was dismissed, in circumstances. Shahnaz Begum v. The Ho’ble Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan and another PLD 1971 SC 677; Canadian Union of Public Employees v. City of Toronto 2003 SCC 63; R. v. Power [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601, at p. 616; R. v. Conway, [1989] 1 S.C.R 1659, at p. 1667 and R. v. Scott [1990] 3 S.C.R 979, at p. 1007 rel. Tariq Hussain for Applicant. Javed Raza for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4. Ms. Rahat Ehsan, APG.

Summary: Bail granted----Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)—Post-Arrest Bail—Grant of Bail in Non-Bailable Offense. (a) Bail—Considerations for Grant—Circumstantial Evidence. ----Accused petitioner was implicated in a case under sections 342/447/448, 395/506(ii) PPC, and 6/7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, alleging armed robbery and extortion. The investigation recovered only a club (Danda) from the petitioner, despite allegations of being armed with a Kalashnikov. The circumstantial evidence was deemed insufficient for denying bail at this stage, as its credibility would depend on trial evidence. (b) Parity Principle in Grant of Bail. ----Co-accused in the same case had already been granted bail by the Court, which served as a relevant factor in extending the same relief to the petitioner, ensuring consistency and fairness in judicial discretion. (c) Accused’s Background—Relevant Factors. ----The petitioner was a first-time offender with no prior convictions or criminal record. Additionally, the investigation was concluded, and the petitioner was no longer required for further investigation. ----Result: Bail granted to the petitioner subject to furnishing bail bonds in the amount of Rs.200,000/- with one surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302, 307, 447. 448, 148 & 149-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)- Leave to appeal granted to convicts to examine the evidence on which their conviction was based and the correctness of the decision of High Court whereby their appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed with slight modification. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302, 307, 447, 448, 148 & 149-Appreciation of evidence-Police party had gone to assist to get the land vacated by force and had encircled during the early hours of the day houses of the accused persons, fully prepared with tear-gas shells etc. and it was not with the purpose of simply arresting them and allowing the law to take its own course with regard to the offence reported under Ss. 447 & 448, P.P.C.-In the course of forcible eviction, not only this but a very large number of residents of the adjoining villages turned up and some shots were fired though not as numerous as alleged by prosecution-Hurling of stone also took place-Held, in such a situation, it would have been difficult for the witnesses who had appeared to identify individually each of them particularly when they had no contact with them in the negotiation earlier taking place-On such evidence and in such a background of events accused could not be convicted on the capital charge-Conviction and sentence of accused persons was set aside.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 200, 435 & 439---Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005), Ss. 3 & 4---Complaint dismissed by Trial Court without recording complainant’s statement in open Court---Mandatory compliance with S.200, Cr.P.C.---Non-compliance rendering order void ab initio---Held, that S.200, Cr.P.C. makes it obligatory upon the Magistrate to record the statement of complainant and witnesses, if any, on oath in open Court before proceeding further---In the present case, a typed statement was placed on record bearing only the complainant’s signature, without the signature or seal of the learned Judge---Trial Court failed to perform the mandatory act of recording statement in open Court; such omission vitiated the entire proceedings---Impugned order, therefore, was legally unsustainable and warranted interference in revision. (b) Police Order (XXII of 2002)--- ----Police Rules---Inquiry report—Vagueness and non-compliance with law---Held, that the Trial Court directed SHO P.S. Khanna to hold inquiry regarding possession and ownership, but the report submitted was vague, perfunctory, and contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Police Order, 2002, and Police Rules---Investigating Officer was bound to associate both parties and record their statements as in an FIR under S.154, Cr.P.C.---Failure to conduct such lawful inquiry rendered the report defective and the Trial Court erred in relying upon it without scrutiny. (c) Administration of justice--- ----Procedural irregularity—Effect---Failure to follow mandatory procedure under S.200, Cr.P.C. and reliance on defective police report constituted serious procedural irregularities rendering impugned order null and void---Matter remanded for fresh proceedings. Disposition: Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; case remanded to the Trial Court with directions to record statements of complainant and witnesses on oath under S.200, Cr.P.C., obtain fresh detailed police report, and proceed strictly in accordance with the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and Cr.P.C.

Summary: Bail denied ----- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 406, 420, 468, 471, 448, 511; Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 ---- Ss. 5 & 23(3); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ---- Ss. 497 & 498; Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ---- Art. 21 Misappropriation of Trust funds --- Preparation of forged documents --- Embezzlement of foreign remittances --- Validity of FIR under FERA --- Post-arrest bail, refusal of --- Principles and scope --- Petitioner, a former Secretary of the Abdul Qadeer Khan Trust, was accused of misappropriating PKR 7,942,670 through fraudulent foreign remittance transfers into his personal account and forging trust resolutions to unlawfully register a new trust body --- Contention raised that under S. 23(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, no FIR could be registered without complaint by State Bank of Pakistan --- Held, S. 406 PPC was the dominant offence with longer punishment and being cognizable, validated the registration of FIR; provisions of FERA were ancillary and did not invalidate the prosecution --- Record showed multiple FIRs involving forgery, trust deed tampering, and attempted forcible possession of hospital property --- Conduct of accused, both prior and subsequent, is relevant under Art. 21 QSO for assessing intent and future threat --- Modus operandi revealed organized criminal activity with intent to repeat offence if released --- Despite offences not falling within prohibitory clause of S. 497 Cr.P.C., bail was rightly refused considering public interest, gravity of offence, and high risk of recidivism --- Bail declined. Cited Cases: • Shameel Ahmad v. The State (2009 SCMR 174) • Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum & others (2002 SCMR 422) • Muhammad Nawaz v. The State (2011 MLD 299)

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — Ss. 249-A, 190 & 561-A — Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199 — Quashment of FIR — Allegation of criminal trespass into State land — Political victimization — FIR registered under Ss. 447, 448/34, P.P.C. after delay of five years from initial land retrieval process — Allegations vague, unsupported, and without specific attribution of intent required under S. 441, P.P.C. — Petitioner, a sitting MNA and opposition alliance leader, was not named in any prior official correspondence and no specific role assigned in FIR — Held, no prima facie material existed to justify continuation of proceedings — FIR registered and proceedings initiated without lawful authority and were quashed. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) — Ss. 441, 447 & 448 — Elements of criminal trespass — Essential requirement of dominant intent to commit offence, intimidate, insult, or annoy person in possession — Mere unauthorized entry without requisite mens rea does not attract S. 441 — Held, residential plot did not qualify as “house” under S. 442, hence offence under S. 448 not attracted — FIR contained no assertion of annoyance or intimidation of any specific occupant — Alleged act, if any, amounted at most to civil trespass — Criminal process cannot be used to settle civil disputes or for political motives. Malik Muhammad Zameer v. Shamim Akhtar 2006 PCr.LJ 539; Abdul Razzaq v. SHO 2008 PCr.LJ 812; Kazi Taj Muhammad v. The State PLD 1962 Karachi 330; Olga Tellis case AIR 1986 SC 180 ref. (c) Constitution of Pakistan — Art. 199(1)(a)(ii) — Judicial review of administrative action — Police officers performing functions under provincial law are amenable to writ jurisdiction — Registration of FIR and investigation are subject to scrutiny where found to be without lawful authority — High Court may quash proceedings to prevent abuse of law and miscarriage of justice — Held, in absence of intent and evidence, registration of FIR was abuse of process — Judicial Magistrate's refusal to quash proceedings under S. 249-A Cr.P.C. was unjustified and liable to be set aside. FIA v. Syed Hamid Ali Shah PLD 2023 SC 265; State v. Ashiq Ali Bhutto 1993 SCMR 523; Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmed 2000 SCMR 122 ref. (d) Criminal law — Arrest — Principles for arresting nominated accused — Police not to arrest a person solely based on nomination in FIR — Investigating officer must collect sufficient material to justify arrest — Held, in absence of such material, arrest or continuation of proceedings is unwarranted — FIR, lodged without credible basis or proof of criminal intent, was rightly quashed to avoid futile trial and wastage of court resources. Sughra Bibi v. The State PLD 2018 SC 595 ref. Disposition: Petition allowed. FIR No. 43/2024 registered under Ss. 447, 448/34, P.P.C. and all proceedings arising therefrom to the extent of the petitioner declared unlawful and quashed. Order of Judicial Magistrate dated 10-05-2024 set aside.

Summary: A private complaint must be filed with the Magistrate unless the law permits otherwise. The Session Court cannot take cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless the Magistrate sends it the case under section 190(2) Cr.P.C. ---- FIR Quashed -- 190 CrPC-- Background In the case of Umar Hasnain and others vs. The State and another, Respondent No.2, Shahnaz Parveen, filed a private complaint against Muhammad Safdar and the petitioners under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), alleging that Safdar, her ex-husband, along with the petitioners, trespassed into her house, assaulted her, and took possession of the property. Shahnaz claimed the house as her dower property and continued to live there even after her divorce. Following an incident on 16.06.2020, she filed an FIR which was subsequently influenced by the accused, leading her to file a private complaint. The Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, admitted the complaint and summoned the accused to face trial. ----Issues: 1) Whether the Additional Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the private complaint directly. ---2) Whether the allegations against the petitioners were baseless and vexatious. ---3) Whether procedural irregularities in filing the complaint could be cured under Section 537 of the Cr.P.C. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome Jurisdiction of the Additional Sessions Judge: The court held that the Additional Sessions Judge did not have jurisdiction to entertain the private complaint directly. Under Sections 190 and 193 of the Cr.P.C., a private complaint must be filed with a Magistrate, who then forwards it to the Sessions Court if it falls within its jurisdiction. The judge stated, "The Session Court cannot take cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless the Magistrate sends it the case under section 190(2) Cr.P.C." -----Procedural Irregularities: The petitioners contended that the direct filing of the complaint was a jurisdictional error, not a mere irregularity. The court agreed, stating, "The rule is well established that where the law requires an act to be done in a specific manner, it has to be done in that manner alone, and such dictate of law cannot be considered a mere technicality." -----Baseless Allegations: While the court did not delve deeply into the merits of the case due to the jurisdictional issue, it noted the petitioners' contention that the allegations were influenced and part of a broader dispute over property. However, since the primary issue was procedural, the court focused on that aspect. The court quashed the proceedings undertaken by the Additional Sessions Judge, allowing Respondent No.2 the option to file a fresh private complaint in accordance with the law. The judge concluded, "Respondent No.2 could not bypass the Magistrate while presenting her private complaint, and the Additional Sessions Judge wrongly assumed jurisdiction over it. The entire proceedings are liable to be quashed." -----Citations/Precedents: Bismillah Khan and others v. The State (2001 PCr.LJ 481) Emphasizes the necessity of filing private complaints with a Magistrate. -----Muhammad Aslam and others v. Mst. Natho Bibi (PLD 1977 Lahore 535) Discusses the role of Magistrates in scrutinizing complaints before forwarding to Sessions Court. -----Mehar Khan v. Yaqub Khan and another (1981 SCMR 267) Affirms the requirement for Magistrates to initially take cognizance of cases. -----Riffat Hayat v. Judge Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Lahore, and another (1994 SCMR 2177) Clarifies the jurisdictional powers of special courts under specific statutes. -----State of Uttar Pradesh vs Singhara Singh and others (AIR 1964 SC 358) Discusses the principle that statutory provisions must be followed as prescribed.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellant, challenged the acquittal of Malik Waris Khan, Malik Zafar, Malik Abid, and others (respondents) by the Senior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate, Peshawar, in connection with FIR No. 692/2003. The FIR was lodged on August 25, 2003, alleging offenses under Sections 506, 457, 448, 148, 149, and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and Section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The allegations pertained to an illegal occupation of the appellant's house and theft of valuables. The trial court acquitted the respondents under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), prompting the appellant to appeal the decision. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the respondents by invoking Section 249-A of the Cr.P.C. 2- Whether the appellant was denied a fair opportunity to present evidence, particularly witnesses, during the trial. 3- Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to convict the respondents. 4- Whether the trial court properly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 249-A of the Cr.P.C. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Trial Court's Exercise of Section 249-A Cr.P.C.: The Federal Shariat Court upheld the trial court's decision to acquit the respondents under Section 249-A Cr.P.C., which allows a Magistrate to acquit an accused at any stage of the case if the charge is groundless or there is no probability of a conviction. The court emphasized that the trial court's decision was well within its jurisdiction and based on the lack of evidence. --Fair Opportunity to Present Evidence: The court found that the appellant was not deprived of a fair opportunity to present evidence. The witnesses and documents that the appellant sought to introduce were related to civil and criminal litigation concerning the title and possession of the disputed property, not to the alleged criminal acts of the respondents. --Insufficiency of Evidence: The court concluded that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to establish the respondents' guilt. The key prosecution witnesses, including the appellant and complainant Arbab Akbar Hayat, failed to directly link the respondents to the alleged offenses. Notably, the appellant was not present at the crime scene, and the complainant did not witness the respondents committing any criminal acts. The court also noted the prosecution's failure to produce key witnesses, such as the appellant's servants, which further weakened the case. --Nature of the Case: The court observed that the thrust of the appellant's case was more focused on establishing ownership and possession of the disputed property rather than proving the criminal charges. The court reiterated that the matter of property ownership should be resolved through civil litigation, not through criminal proceedings. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's decision to acquit the respondents. The court found no illegality or perversity in the trial court's order and concluded that there was no probability of conviction based on the available and forthcoming evidence. The court emphasized that the criminal proceedings appeared to be an attempt to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case, which was not appropriate.