Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---- Ss. 22-A, 173, 190 & 195 --- Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- S. 182 --- False Information --- Registration of FIR --- Justice of Peace --- Maintainability --- Instant Petition for Leave to Appeal was filed against order dated 29.5.2025, passed by Single Judge, High Court of Sindh, Karachi, in Cr. Misc. Application No.655/2024, whereby Cr. Misc. Application, filed against order dated 13.5.2024, passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) has been dismissed --- Briefly, facts were that on 18.11.2005 one Mansoor Ali lodged FIR bearing No.410/2005 at Boat Basin Police Station, Karachi, for offences under Sections 506-B, 504, and 34 PPC against petitioner and his father (now deceased) in which they were tried and convicted by Trial Court which was set-aside in appeal and they were acquitted of charge by learned Appellate Court --- Per petitioner, FIR was false and vexatious and during trial proposed accused Muzzamil Ali Sheikha and Mustansar Ali Sheikha (respondents Nos.5 & 6) have recorded false statements against him and his father and based on their evidence they were convicted but learned Appellate Court has acquitted them in appeal --- Petitioner in first instance approached local police for taking action against proposed accused (respondents Nos.5 & 6) under Section 182, PPC and having failed to receive response has invoked jurisdiction under Section 22-A, CrPC --- Learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace after hearing parties' respective counsel and going through report of police declined to issue direction to SHO to lodge FIR of petitioner against respondents Nos.5 & 6 and dismissed application under Section 22-A, CrPC whereafter, petitioner filed Cr. Misc. Application No.655/2024 before Sindh High Court, Karachi, which too, vide impugned order, was dismissed --- Learned counsel for petitioner argued that both Courts below were not justified to decline relief sought by petitioner against accused persons who falsely implicated petitioner in aforesaid FIR, however, after trial, petitioner and his father (now deceased) were acquitted from charge --- According to learned counsel, petitioner and his father were made to face criminal proceedings, which were based on mala fide and resulted in malicious prosecution, which caused damage and injury to their reputation --- Learned counsel further argued that it was duty of concerned Station House Officer ("SHO") to initiate proceedings under Section 182, PPC against respondents Nos.5 & 6 for having recorded their false statements with intention to cause injury to petitioner and his father, so that accused persons would have been convicted under Section 182, PPC for recording false statements --- Respondents argued that in view of proceedings before judicial forums, wherein, no such directions were issued to I.O or SHO for initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 182, PPC, therefore, petitioner cannot compel I.O or SHO to initiate such proceedings --- Court held that grievance expressed by petitioner before this Court is against refusal of concerned SHO to initiate proceedings under Section 182, PPC against two accused persons namely Muzzamil Ali Sheikha and Mustansar Ali Sheikha who according to petitioner gave false evidence before Trial Court resulting in conviction of petitioner and his father (now deceased) in FIR bearing No. 410/2005 at Boat Basin, PS Karachi for offences under Sections 506-B, 504 and 34, PPC vide judgment dated 03.03.2008 by court of VIIth Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Karachi (South) --- Court held that order of Trial Court was assailed by accused persons namely Abid Hussain and Ali Adnan Sheikha (petitioner in instant case) in Criminal Appeal No. 05/2008 in court of VTH Additional District and Session Judge Karachi (South) who vide judgment dated 23.05.2009 set aside judgment of Trial Court and acquitted petitioners with further directions to cancel bail bonds and discharge sureties --- Court held that it is pertinent to mention that petitioner appears to have not assailed aforesaid judgment passed by Appellant Court as nothing has been placed on record to this effect --- Court held that however, petitioners after lapse of 15 years from date of aforesaid judgment approached police authorities to initiate proceedings against Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 who according to petitioner recorded false evidence before Trial Court --- Court held that on refusal by police to exceed to request of petitioner, petitioner approached Ex Officio Justice of Peace i.e. VTH Additional District and Session Judge Karachi (South) by filing application under Section 22-A, CrPC for issuance of direction to concerned SHO to initiate proceedings under Section 182, PPC against aforesaid respondents, however, such application was dismissed after hearing parties in detail vide judgment dated 13.05.2024 --- Court held that petitioner feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 655/2024 under Section 561, CrPC before High Court of Sindh, Karachi who after hearing parties and having examined entire facts and relevant law in detail has been pleased to dismiss same --- Court held that though learned Single Judge in aforesaid paras has correctly interpreted relevant provisions of law which do not require any interference by this Court however, in order to further elaborate scope of relevant provisions of law attracted in instant case i.e. Sections 173, 190 and 195, CrPC and Section 182, PPC we may examine same in detail --- Court held that Section 173, CrPC mandates that every investigation pursuant to FIR shall be completed within 14 days however, if investigation is not completed within period of 14 days, officer In Charge of police station shall within 3 days of expiration of such period forward to Magistrate through public prosecutor, an interim report in form prescribed by provincial government --- Court held that I.O after completing investigation as per Rule 24.7 of Police Rules, 1934 can recommend disposal of FIR in Class "A" if case is true but accused is untraceable, or in Class "B" if information given to police is maliciously false, or in Class "C", if matter is non-cognizable or for civil suit or case was filed owing to mistake of fact --- Court held that once such report is submitted before concerned Magistrate of First Class or any other Magistrate specially empowered by provincial government on recommendation of High Court, such Magistrate has power to either accept same or take cognizance of offence reported or to direct I.O to reinvestigate matter and submit fresh report within prescribed period --- Court held that however, Magistrate has no authority to direct I.O for disposal of FIR under A, B or C class as referred to herein above --- Court held that in case I.O after completion of investigation forms opinion that information laid before police by complainant is false, he can recommend disposal of FIR in "B" Class (maliciously false) after recording reasons and submit same before concerned Magistrate, who after perusal of same can accept such recommendation and dispose of FIR in "B" class or issue directions for disposal of case in any other class and can take cognizance of matter and proceed further in accordance with law --- Court held that however, said Magistrate has no authority to issue directions to initiate proceedings under Section 182, PPC against complainant in view of bar laid under Section 195, CrPC which provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 187 of Pakistan Penal Code, except on complaint in writing of public servant concerned, or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate --- Court held that it may be clarified that in case of registration of FIR information is laid before SHO of concerned police station, then only said SHO is competent to initiate proceedings under Section 182, PPC in case of false information in appropriate cases, whereas, if such SHO is not available or prevented by sufficient cause to initiate proceedings under Section 182, PPC then such proceedings can be initiated by superior police officer --- Court held that having examined aforesaid provisions of law we may now explain scope of Section 182, PPC which provides that if complaint is laid before any public servant giving any information which he/she knows or believes to be false with intention to cause or likely to cause, such public servant, to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if true state of facts were known by him, or to use lawful power of such public servant to injury or annoyance of such person then such person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to six months or with fine too which may extend to three thousand rupees or with both --- Court held that it may be observed here that incase information laid before public servant with Bonafide belief and knowledge of it being true, same cannot be termed as false unless it is proved in accordance with law through judicial proceedings --- Court held that such information can be termed as 'not proved' and not 'false' and, therefore, same cannot attract penal provision of Section 182, PPC --- Court held that suffice is to state that provision of Section 182, PPC can only be initiated by public servant before whom false information was laid, which resulted in initiation of criminal proceedings and found to be false through judicial process, whereas, such penal provisions cannot be invoked in cases where complainant could not prove allegations by producing sufficient evidence or material in support of such allegation before judicial forum --- Court held that to sum up above discussion in view of hereinabove provisions of law it has emerged that no court can take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 182, PPC for having given false information to public servant in order to cause him to use his lawful power, except on written complaint of concerned public servant or his higher authority --- Court held that in case in hand it has transpired that neither I.O formed opinion that information given by complainant is false nor submitted report under Section 173, CrPC before concerned Magistrate for disposal of case in "B" Class, instead report was submitted for disposal of case in "C" Class however, Magistrate took cognizance of matter and convicted accused persons nominated therein through judicial process --- Court held that such judgment of Trial Court was assailed before appellate forum who acquitted accused persons in view of contradiction in judgment of Trial Court --- Court held that however, there was no finding of Appellate Court to effect that information laid before police by complainant was false --- Court held that since there was no opinion of I.O and finding by any judicial forum holding information laid before police by complainant as false, therefore, provisions of Section 182, PPC are otherwise not attracted in instant case --- Court held that any other interpretation to hereinabove provisions of law would result in multiplying criminal litigation out of same criminal proceedings and would open floodgate of filing frivolous proceedings in every criminal case where complainant could not succeed due to any other reason i.e. jurisdictional defect, limitation, insufficient evidence, or benefit of doubt etc --- Court held that in view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of case, we do not find any substance in instant Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal whereas, learned Single Judge of Sindh High Court, Karachi has ably dealt with all factual and legal issues as per spirit of law, therefore, impugned judgment does not suffer from any factual error or legal infirmity --- Petition was dismissed accordingly.

Summary: Background: The case involves a protracted property dispute between the petitioner and respondent. The petitioner, along with her children, sought to quash an FIR registered by the respondent accusing them of forgery and fraud. The FIR was based on allegedly forged documents used in a civil case over the disputed property. The petitioner argued that the FIR, which was registered without court approval, lacked legal authority since it pertained to documents submitted during a court proceeding. Concurrently, the respondent sought the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner and her children. -----Issues: 1- Whether an FIR based on alleged forgery in documents submitted in a court proceeding can be lawfully registered without court approval. -----2- Whether the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner and her children should be canceled due to alleged misuse of the concession. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court ruled that the registration of the FIR was valid, emphasizing that Sections 195 and 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) only bar the initiation of criminal proceedings at the trial stage, not at the investigation stage. The court noted that all preliminary steps, including FIR registration and investigation, are permissible before a court officially takes cognizance of the case. Regarding the pre-arrest bail, the court upheld it, citing insufficient evidence of forgery and confirming that the alleged document was signed by the petitioner’s missing husband. The petitions for bail cancellation and FIR quashing were both dismissed. -----Citations/Precedents: Ch. Nadir Khan and Zafar Ahmad vs. The State [NLR 1989 Cr L J 214] State Government, Madhya Pradesh vs. Hifzul Rahman and others [AIR (39) 1952 Nagpur 12] Zafar Iqbal vs. The State [NLR 1986 Cr L J 14] Muhammad Suleman and others vs. Abdur Razzaque and others [PLD 2005 Lahore 386] Miandad vs. The State and another [1992 SCMR 1286] Muzaffar Iqbal vs. Muhammad Imran Aziz and others [2004 SCMR 231] Muhammad Rizwan vs. The State and 03 others [2007 P.Cr.L.J. 78] Industrial Development Bank etc vs. Mian Asim Farid etc [2006 SCMR 283] Muhammad Nazir vs. Fazal Karim and others [PLD 2012 S.C. 892] Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, M/O Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad vs. Zafar Awan [PLD 1992 S.C. 72] Muhammad Bashir vs. SHO Okara Cantt and others [PLD 2007 S.C. 539] Director General, Anti Corruption Establishment, Lahore and others vs. Muhammad Akram Khan and others [PLD 2013 SC 401] Rehmat Ali and others vs. Ahmad Din and others [1991 SCMR 185] Miraj Khan vs. Gul Ahmed and 3 others [2000 SCMR 122] Muhammad Mansha vs. Station House Officer, Police Station City, Chiniot, District Jhang and others [PLD 2006 SC 598] Col. Shah Sadiq vs. Muhammad Ashiq and others [2006 SCMR 276] Emperor v. Kh. Nazir Ahmad [AIR 1945 PC 18] Shahnaz Begum vs. The Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan and another [PLD 1971 SC 677] The State / Anti Narcotics through Director General vs. Rafiq Ahmad Channa [2010 SCMR 580] The State through Force Commander, Anti-Narcotics Force, Rawalpindi vs. Khalid Sharif [2006 SCMR 1265] Ehsan Akbar vs. The State and others [2007 SCMR 482]

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973: ----Art. 4 & Art. 199---Departmental proceedings---Right to be dealt with in accordance with law---Violation of earlier court direction---Scope---Where a court directs that objections raised in a writ petition be treated and decided accordingly by a competent authority, failure to address those objections renders the resulting decision void ab-initio---Held, respondent No.2’s order dated 30.01.2025 disregarded the binding directive of the High Court and failed to address petitioner’s objections, violating the right to be treated in accordance with law under Article 4---Resulting disciplinary proceedings were, therefore, unsustainable. Cited Cases: • All Public Universities BPS Teachers Assoc. v. Federation of Pakistan 2025 SCMR 322 • Muhammad Tariq Khan v. NBP 2024 CLD 1350 • Muhammad Akram Sohail v. Govt. of Punjab 2024 LHC 1923 (b) Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 2020: ----R. 3---Departmental proceedings---Scope of applicability---Misstatement in pleadings before tribunal---Whether constitutes misconduct---Petitioners proceeded against under Rule 3 based on alleged misstatement in service appeals filed before the FST---Held, acts in question pertained to pleadings prepared by counsel and not to petitioners’ official conduct---Misstatement, if any, could be addressed via S. 12(2), C.P.C. or S. 195, Cr.P.C. by the relevant forum, not through disciplinary proceedings---None of the four grounds listed under Rule 3 (inefficiency, misconduct, corruption, or subversion) attracted in the case---Disciplinary action initiated was thus ultra vires and void. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Tariq Khan v. NBP 2024 CLD 1350 • Samina Pathan v. Federation of Pakistan 2018 PLC (C.S.) Note 36 • Prof. Dr. Mahmood Baig v. Ministry of Science & Technology 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1451 (c) Civil Procedure Code, 1908: ----S. 12(2)---Remedy against misstatement or concealment in pleadings---Where allegations of misrepresentation or concealment arise from submissions before a judicial forum, appropriate remedy is application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. before the same forum---Failure of respondents to avail such remedy, despite recommendations, barred subsequent initiation of disciplinary proceedings on the same grounds. (d) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898: ----S. 195---False statement before tribunal---Proper course of action---Held, where a party alleges misrepresentation before a judicial forum, forum itself is empowered to refer matter for criminal action---Respondents’ failure to act under S.195 and resort to disciplinary measures instead was held legally untenable. (e) Constitutional Jurisdiction: ----Interference in disciplinary proceedings---Scope---While courts generally refrain from intervening in ongoing disciplinary processes, such jurisdiction may be exercised where proceedings are without legal foundation, mala fide, or intended to frustrate a final judicial order---In instant case, disciplinary proceedings were found to be a tool to delay implementation of a judgment upheld by the Supreme Court---Held, continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of process. ----Cited Cases: • Fahad Faizan Khan v. Federation of Pakistan 2023 PLC (C.S.) Note 4 • Muhammad Tariq Khan v. NBP 2024 CLD 1350

Summary: Bail granted---(a) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860: ----Ss. 205, 420, 468, 471---False personation for bail---Forgery of bail bonds---Nature of offence---Scope of criminal liability. Petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in an FIR registered under Sections 420, 468, and 471 PPC for allegedly furnishing forged bail bonds in a private complaint. Supreme Court held that under Section 205 PPC, a person who falsely impersonates another and acts in a legal proceeding can be penalized. However, petitioners were not the sureties, and even if they were aware of the forged bail bonds, they could, at most, be charged under Section 109 PPC for abetment. The Court reiterated that Section 205 PPC is a non-cognizable offence, and no FIR could be registered for such an offence without following the procedure laid down in Section 195 Cr.P.C. ----Cited Cases: Gul Khan v. The State (2015 P Cr. L J 126) Attique-ur-Rehman v. The State (2000 P Cr. L J 703) (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898: ----S. 195---Prosecution for offences relating to court proceedings---Filing of FIR barred---Exclusive jurisdiction of court concerned. The Court held that offences under Section 205 PPC, when committed in relation to court proceedings, fall within the ambit of Section 195 Cr.P.C., which mandates that only the court where the offence occurred can initiate proceedings through a written complaint. FIR registration in such cases is not permissible, and any prosecution must follow the special procedure under Section 476 Cr.P.C. allowing the court to take cognizance and try the offence itself. The decision reaffirmed the principle that administrative justice should not be interfered with by external law enforcement. ----Cited Cases: Ch. Feroze Din v. Dr. K.M. Munir (1970 SCMR 10) Abdul Ghafoor v. The State (1984 P Cr. L J 381) (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: ----Art. 2(1)(c)---Definition of evidence---Production of documents in judicial proceedings---Bail bonds as documentary evidence. Court held that bail bonds, once submitted before a court, qualify as documentary evidence under Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Whether a document is forged or genuine must be determined by the court where it was produced, as mandated by Section 195 Cr.P.C. FIR registration for forged bail bonds contravenes this principle, as the appropriate remedy is a court-initiated action. ----Cited Cases: Ameer Khan v. The State (2013 YLR 1624) Muhammad Waris Ali v. The State (2013 P Cr. L J 1500) (d) Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973: ----S. 59---Elimination of touts in legal proceedings---Independent legal framework for prosecution. Prosecution argued that FIR registration was necessary to curb toutism in courts. The Court rejected this contention, holding that toutism is regulated under Section 59 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, which provides a separate mechanism for identifying and prosecuting touts. Allowing police intervention in court-administered matters would create procedural conflicts and disrupt judicial independence. (e) Grant of Pre-Arrest Bail: ----Ss. 498, 497 Cr.P.C.---Scope of pre-arrest bail---Question of further inquiry---Principles applied. Court reaffirmed that while deciding pre-arrest bail petitions, merits of the case can be examined to determine whether further inquiry is needed. Since no direct evidence linked petitioners to the alleged forgery, and FIR registration was procedurally improper, pre-arrest bail was confirmed. ----Cited Cases: Khair Muhammad v. The State (2021 SCMR 130) Javed Iqbal v. The State (2022 SCMR 1424) ----Disposition: Pre-arrest bail confirmed, subject to fresh bail bonds of Rs. 100,000 each. FIR registration declared improper under Section 195 Cr.P.C.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---Sections 195, 476, 480, 485, 487; Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 174--- Procedure for trial of offenses under Sections 172 to 188, PPC---Scope and limitations---The appellant, a Station House Officer (SHO), was convicted under Section 174, PPC, by the Additional Sessions Judge for failing to produce an accused in compliance with a court order. Held, offenses under Sections 172 to 188, PPC, fall within the purview of Section 195, Cr.P.C., which prescribes that such offenses cannot be tried without a written complaint from the public servant concerned or a competent court. The Additional Sessions Judge was not legally authorized to directly convict and sentence the appellant. Instead, the complaint should have been forwarded to a Magistrate with jurisdiction for trial under the prescribed procedure. (b) Judicial authority and contempt of court ---Scope of powers under Sections 480 and 485, Cr.P.C.---Offenses such as refusal to produce a document or answer questions (Sections 175 and 179, PPC) can attract the summary procedure under Sections 480 and 485, Cr.P.C., allowing the court to impose up to seven days’ imprisonment. However, Section 174, PPC, does not fall within this framework, and its trial requires adherence to the procedure under Chapter XX of Cr.P.C. (c) Restriction on judicial powers ---Section 487, Cr.P.C.---Judges and Magistrates (except High Court Judges) are barred from directly trying offenses under Section 195, Cr.P.C., committed before themselves or in contempt of their authority. In such cases, the Judge or Magistrate must refer the matter to a competent Magistrate for trial. ----- Disposition: Conviction and sentence under Section 174, PPC, set aside as unlawful. The Additional Sessions Judge may initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure.