Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 195 & 476---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 193---Furnishing false information in judicial proceedings---Discretion of Court to initiate proceedings under S. 195, Cr.P.C.---Respondent No. 3 filed a family suit for the recovery of dower, maintenance for herself and the minor children against the petitioner---Respondent alleged that petitioner falsely furnished a statement that petitioner had divorced her, whereas a compromise deed was submitted confirming that the relationship of husband and wife between the parties existed, which constituted false evidence and perjury---Validity---Section 195, Cr.P.C. is an exception to the general rule that any person, having knowledge of commission of an offence, sets the law in motion by a complaint, even though he is not presently interested or affected by the offence---Thus, it mandates that no Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences mentioned therein unless there is a complaint in writing required under this section---In the present case, it was an admitted fact that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.3 was contracted in 2015 and subsequently, differences arose leading to litigation before the Family Court, where the matter of alleged divorce was still sub judice---Respondent No.3, in her plaint and affidavit, had asserted that she had been divorced by the petitioner---Court, during the earlier writ proceedings, even made efforts for reconciliation by appointing a mediator, however, the attempt failed---Since the question of divorce and marital status of the parties was pending adjudication before the Family Court, High Court at this stage could not determine the truth or falsity of the affidavit or statements made by respondent No. 3---There was no denial to the legal proposition that all courts, including the Family Court, were empowered under S.195 & 476, Cr.P.C. to take cognizance of perjury committed before them---Purpose of the provisions is that whenever it appeares to a Court, whether through an application or otherwise, that the stated offence mentioned in S.195, Cr.P.C appears to have been committed in or in relation to any proceedings in that Court and the Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that a complaint should be lodged against the offending person, then Court is duty bound to lodge such a complaint---Said provisions act as a check against false evidence and authorize the concerned Court to proceed against any person who misled it by perjured testimony---However, in the present case, as the family suit was pending before the competent forum, it was for that Family Court to examine, in due course, the veracity of the statements and evidence produced before it---High Court could not, at this stage, record findings regarding the alleged falsity of the affidavit or compromise deed annexed by the petitioner---Application, being without merit, was dismissed. Nadar Wali v. Sumaya Gul and another 2020 SCMR 414 ref. Iltaf Samad for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 24th October, 2025.

Summary: FIR Quashed ---- Definition of cognizable and non-cognizable offences ---- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – ----Ss. 154 & 155---Registration of FIR---Distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable offenses---Scope---Petitioners, being police officers, were accused of negligence in investigation and were subsequently charged under Ss. 167 and 193, P.P.C., through FIR registered on the orders of Inspector General of Police---Validity---Sections 167 and 193, P.P.C., being non-cognizable offenses, did not empower the police to register an FIR without prior approval of a Magistrate---Under Ss. 154 & 155, Cr.P.C., only cognizable offenses warranted immediate registration of an FIR, while in cases of non-cognizable offenses, police officials were required to make an entry in the daily register (Roznamcha) and seek permission from a Magistrate before proceeding further---Police exceeded its jurisdiction by directly registering an FIR without referring the matter to the Magistrate---FIR quashed accordingly. ---- Cited Cases: Mst. Malka Jan v. IGP NWFP Peshawar and 2 others (PLJ 2000 Peshawar 3) Haji Rehman SHO and 3 others v. Provincial Police Officer, Government of KPK Peshawar and 3 others (2012 P.Cr.LJ Peshawar 1526) Muhammad Ashiq and 2 others v. SHO, PS, Northern Cantt. Lahore and 3 others (2005 YLR 1879) Muhammad Shafi v. SHO and others (2012 YLR 828) (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – ----S. 155(2)---Investigation of non-cognizable offenses---Requirement of prior Magistrate approval---Scope---Held, where a police officer investigated a non-cognizable offense without obtaining prior permission from a Magistrate, such action was in blatant violation of statutory provisions and constituted an abuse of process of law---Police could only enter the information in their records and refer the matter to a Magistrate for further action, but could not proceed with registration of an FIR independently---Violation of such mandatory provisions warranted intervention by the High Court under constitutional jurisdiction---FIR quashed accordingly. Cited Cases: Muhammad Anwar and others v. Muhammad Ilyas Begum and others (PLD 2013 SC 255) (c) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – ----Art. 4---Fundamental rights---Protection of law and due process---Scope---Every citizen had an inalienable right to be treated in accordance with law, and where an act by a public authority violated statutory provisions, the High Court had the power to intervene in its constitutional jurisdiction---Police, by registering a case in violation of mandatory legal provisions, infringed upon the fundamental rights of the petitioners---Where law prescribed a specific procedure, it had to be followed in that manner or not at all---FIR quashed accordingly. (d) Administration of Justice – ----Police excesses---Judicial oversight---High Court’s power to quash proceedings initiated without legal sanction---Scope---FIR lodged without jurisdiction and in violation of express statutory provisions could not be allowed to stand, as it would set a precedent for abuse of police powers in matters involving non-cognizable offenses---Petition allowed and FIR quashed. Disposition: Petition allowed, FIR No. 197 dated 07.03.2014 under Ss. 167 & 193, P.P.C., Police Station Khazana, Peshawar, quashed.

Summary: (a) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979— ----S. 10(3)---Zina-bil-jabr (rape)---Prosecution case based on the allegations that the accused, being a family doctor, committed zina-bil-jabr with the complainant while she was unwell and alone in her room---Delay of 47 days in lodging F.I.R. with no plausible explanation---Complainant claimed she refrained from filing the report due to an expectation of marriage with the accused, which eventually did not materialize---Prosecution failed to furnish independent corroborative evidence to support the claim of sexual assault---Medical examination revealed that the complainant was accustomed to sexual intercourse, further weakening the prosecution’s case---Absence of semen detection on complainant’s clothes and absence of external injuries raised serious doubts about the occurrence of forced sexual intercourse---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/-, payable to the complainant as compensation, with an additional one-year imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 342---Statement of accused---Accused, while denying the prosecution’s allegations, stated that the complainant falsely implicated him due to his refusal to marry her after his marriage to someone else---Accused produced documentary evidence of his marriage, establishing an alternate motive behind the accusation. (c) Administration of Justice--- ----Investigation Officer’s opinion---Investigating Officer concluded that the complainant had falsely implicated the accused due to her personal grudge---Trial Court, instead of objectively evaluating the evidence, unjustifiably passed adverse remarks against the Investigating Officer and initiated proceedings against him under S. 193, P.P.C. (Perjury)---Such strictures against the Investigating Officer were held to be uncalled for and were struck down by the Federal Shariat Court. (d) Criminal Trial---Burden of proof--- ----Onus always lies on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt---Prosecution failed to establish the occurrence of zina-bil-jabr beyond reasonable doubt, as no corroborative evidence was presented apart from the complainant’s statement---Serious doubts were created due to the delayed F.I.R., absence of supporting forensic evidence, and lack of physical resistance from the complainant despite the alleged circumstances---High Court held that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish guilt and granted the accused the benefit of doubt. (e) Disposition--- ----Federal Shariat Court, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, accepted the appeal of the accused, set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court, and ordered his release from jail---Criminal Revision for enhancement of sentence filed by the complainant was dismissed, and suo moto notice issued for sentence enhancement was recalled.