Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- Ss. 154, 156(3), 157, 164 & 173 ---- Scope and legality of pre-FIR inquiry under Section 156(3) ---- Confessional statements recorded during unlawful inquiry ---- Admissibility and evidentiary value The Supreme Court held that the purported “inquiry” initiated under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the registration of FIR was ultra vires the scheme of the Code. A Magistrate is not empowered under Section 156(3) to authorize an “inquiry”; such provision only permits ordering an investigation into a cognizable offence after registration under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The arrests, interrogations, and recovery of the body in the present case all occurred during an illegal “inquiry,” thereby circumventing mandatory safeguards under Sections 154–157 Cr.P.C. This violation undermined the voluntariness of the confessional statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which were made after prolonged police custody. The Court held that such confessions, recorded in the backdrop of procedural illegality and custodial pressure, could not be treated as voluntary. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 365-A, 302(b), 34 ---- Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 ---- S. 7(a) ---- Kidnapping for ransom and murder of minor --- Conflicting confessional statements --- Benefit of doubt Appellants were convicted and sentenced to death for kidnapping and murder of a minor. The Court found that their confessional statements were mutually contradictory, exculpatory in parts, retracted later, and lacked corroboration. One accused attributed the crime to the other, and vice versa. In absence of independent evidence, such confessions could not sustain conviction. The DNA report was inconclusive; identification of the decomposed body was based merely on clothing. There was no proof of ransom demand, and the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses were inconsistent. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Appellants were acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt. (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872) [Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984] ---- Art. 43 (now Art. 164), Art. 22 ---- Judicial confession --- Evidentiary threshold --- Principles reiterated A retracted judicial confession must be voluntary, truthful, and confidence-inspiring to be relied upon without corroboration. The Court reiterated that confessions must be read as a whole and cannot be accepted in parts. Where exculpatory elements exist and there is no independent corroboration, the confession loses its probative value. The delay in recording the confessions after prolonged custody also raised suspicion regarding their voluntariness. (d) Criminal justice system ---- Abuse of coercive powers by police ---- Misuse of ‘madd’ entry and unauthorized inquiries ---- Directions issued to ensure compliance with Cr.P.C. The Court noted with concern the practice in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa of entering mere information as a ‘madd’ and then initiating inquiries under Section 156(3) without registering an FIR. It was emphasized that such unauthorized proceedings erode constitutional safeguards and result in miscarriage of justice. Directions were issued to the Prosecutor General and IGP to ensure strict adherence to the statutory framework under Cr.P.C. and to educate magistrates and police officers accordingly. Disposition: Appeals allowed; convictions set aside; appellants acquitted. Cited Cases: • Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State (PLD 2018 SC 595) • Mohammad Ramzan v. The State (PLJ 1979 SC 302) • Tariq Mehmood v. The State (2002 SCMR 1493) • Javed Iqbal v. The State (2023 SCMR 139) • Majeed v. The State (2010 SCMR 55) • Muhammad Parvez v. The State (2007 SCMR 670) • Indian cases: Gopal Das Sindhi, Suresh Chand Jain, Sakiri Vasu Cited Provisions: • Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-A, 302(b), 34 • Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, S. 7(a) • Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, Ss. 2(f), 2(k), 2(l), 154, 156(3), 157, 164, 173 • Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Arts. 22, 43 (now 164)

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S.154---First Information Report (FIR)---Nature, scope and purpose---Information regarding commission of cognizable offence---Held, an FIR under S.154, Cr.P.C. is merely the first information to the police about commission of a cognizable offence; it is not required by law to contain the full or final version of the occurrence, names of all accused, motive, weapon used, eye-witnesses or complete factual details---Object of FIR is only to set the criminal law in motion and enable the police to commence investigation---Subsequent information about the same occurrence, even if containing a different or more detailed narrative, does not become another “first” information---There is no concept in Cr.P.C. of “second” or “third” FIR (SIR/TIR) for the same occurrence; the Code contemplates only one FIR for one incident and one case-number throughout its course. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss.154, 156, 161 & 173---Police Rules, 1934, Rr.24.1 & 25.2---Registration of case and investigation---Single case-number---Recording of divergent versions---Held, upon registration of an FIR under S.154, Cr.P.C. a criminal “case” comes into existence, is assigned a number, and the same number continues till final decision of the matter---During investigation under Ss.156 & 161, Cr.P.C., the investigating officer may, and is obliged to, record any number of versions of the same incident brought to his notice by different persons, but all such versions are to be recorded as statements under S.161, Cr.P.C. in the same case and investigated together---No separate FIR is to be registered for every new or divergent version of the same occurrence---Investigating officer, in terms of R.25.2(3) of Police Rules, 1934, is bound “to find out the truth of the matter under investigation”, discover the actual facts, and arrest the real offender(s), without committing himself prematurely to any one view for or against any person---Final report under S.173, Cr.P.C. must be based on facts discovered during investigation, irrespective of the narrative in FIR or any other version recorded during investigation. H.R.C._10842_P_2018 (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S.154---Multiple FIRs---Same occurrence---Legality of second FIR---Conflicting versions---Held, where commission of a cognizable offence arising out of a particular occurrence has already been reported to the police and an FIR has been registered, the law does not permit registration of a second or subsequent FIR in respect of any fresh or conflicting version of that same occurrence---All later versions, whether advanced by an accused, complainant, or any other person, are to be recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. and investigated in the same case---Practice of registering separate FIRs for counter-versions or additional narratives of the same incident is contrary to the scheme of Cr.P.C. and Police Rules---Courts and police authorities must not treat the FIR as the exclusive or conclusive version; it is only one of the many versions to be tested in investigation---A second FIR in respect of the same occurrence is, therefore, without lawful authority and cannot be ordered merely to accommodate a different narrative of that occurrence. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S.154---Case-law on multiple FIRs---Two lines of authority in precedent---Clarification of correct position---Held, earlier case-law of High Courts revealed two categories: first, a consistent line holding that only one FIR is to be registered and all other versions be recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. in the same case; second, a line permitting registration of second FIRs for counter-versions or different grievances arising from the same occurrence---Supreme Court, after examining both categories, approved the first line of cases as being in accord with the statutory scheme and disapproved the second line as based on misunderstanding of S.154, Cr.P.C. and Police Rules---As regards Supreme Court’s own precedents, it was held that Jamshed Ahmad v. Muhammad Akram Khan (1975 SCMR 149) and Kaura v. The State (1983 SCMR 436) were closer to the correct scheme of the law, whereas Wajid Ali Khan Durani v. Government of Sindh (2001 SCMR 1556), Mst. Anwar Begum v. SHO PS Kalri West, Karachi (PLD 2005 SC 297) and Ali Muhammad v. Syed Bibi (PLD 2016 SC 484) had drifted away from that scheme and thereby contributed to confusion and distortion---Such latter judgments were rendered without proper assistance on the underlying statutory scheme and, to that extent, do not lay down the correct law on permissibility of second FIRs. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss.154 & 161---Courts’ role vis-à-vis investigation---Orders for second FIR on assessment of mala fides in initial investigation---Scope---Held, approach whereby Courts order registration of a second FIR on the premise that the first FIR is “mala fide, dishonest, colourful and motivated”, or that investigation is being misled, is inconsistent with the scheme of Cr.P.C.---Such orders amount to premature value judgments at investigation stage and convert Courts into monitors or supervisors of investigation, a role not contemplated by law---Proper remedy lies in ensuring impartial, comprehensive investigation which must incorporate all versions under S.161, Cr.P.C., rather than multiplying FIRs---Subsequent versions can and must be brought on record within the same case without need for another FIR, and investigation must test each narrative to discover the true facts. (f) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss.200 & 202---Private complaint---Direction for police investigation in complaint case---Powers of arrest and recovery---Efficacious alternative to second FIR---Held, where an aggrieved party is dissatisfied with the version recorded in an already registered FIR, the law provides the remedy of filing a private complaint under Chapter XVI, Cr.P.C.---In terms of S.202(1), Cr.P.C., the Magistrate seised of a private complaint may direct an inquiry or investigation by a Justice of Peace, a police officer or any other person deemed fit---Once such investigation is ordered, the powers described in Part V, Chapter XIV, Cr.P.C. read with S.4(1)(l) (including powers of arrest and recovery) are fully available and do not distinguish between a State case and a complaint case---Misconception that arrest and recovery are not possible in a complaint case was declared erroneous; private complaint with investigation under S.202, Cr.P.C. is an adequate and efficacious remedy and does not justify insistence on a second FIR. (g) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss.54, 55, 157---Police Rules, 1934---Arrest of nominated accused---Nomination per se not sufficient---Reasonable grounds and material required---Held, law does not permit arrest of a person merely because he is nominated as an accused in an FIR or in any version recorded during investigation---Powers of arrest under Ss.54 & 55, Cr.P.C. and relevant Police Rules must be exercised subject to requirements of reasonable complaint, credible information or reasonable suspicion, supported by tangible material within knowledge of the police officer---Arrest encroaches upon personal liberty and must therefore be strictly construed and employed only when sufficient material exists on record to prima facie connect a suspect with the offence---Ordinarily, arrest should be deferred until such material is collected; it is not to be used mechanically or as an automatic consequence of registration of FIR or lodging of any subsequent version. (h) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss.154, 161 & 173---Summary of legal principles---FIR, investigation and final report---Supreme Court crystallized the legal position as follows: (i) Information that a cognizable offence has been committed at a particular time and place is sufficient to require registration of an FIR; (ii) Any narrative accompanying such information is merely the informant’s version and not to be accepted unreservedly as truth; (iii) Upon registration of FIR a criminal case comes into existence and retains one case-number till final decision; (iv) During investigation, the officer may record any number of versions of the same incident under S.161, Cr.P.C. in the same case; no separate FIR is to be recorded for any new version; (v) Investigating officer must investigate from all possible angles, keeping in view every version brought to his notice, and must strive to discover actual facts and real offenders; (vi) No person is to be arrested straightaway merely on nomination in any version; justification, based on material, is necessary; (vii) Final report under S.173, Cr.P.C. must reflect actual facts discovered in investigation, not simply the FIR narrative or any particular party’s version. (i) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S.154---Application to facts of present case---Second FIR in alleged fake police encounter---Held, in the case at hand an FIR had already been registered by the police in respect of the same encounter in which petitioner’s son was killed; investigation was completed and challan submitted---Petitioner thereafter filed a private complaint alleging that her son had been murdered in a staged encounter; accused named therein were summoned and trial on the complaint was in progress---In these circumstances, ordering registration of another FIR on the petitioner’s version of the very same occurrence was held to be not legally warranted under S.154, Cr.P.C. and the principles declared by the Court---Human Rights petition seeking registration of second FIR was accordingly dismissed. (j) Administration of justice---Delay in trial---Directions to trial court---Held, occurrence had taken place more than a decade earlier and the trial court had been seised of the complaint case for many years without significant progress---Such delay and apathy were found to be shocking---Trial court directed to conclude the trial within four months and submit a compliance report to the Registrar, Supreme Court. (k) Criminal justice system---Uniform implementation of law on FIR and investigation---Administrative directions---Held, to ensure uniform application of law declared regarding FIR, multiple versions and investigation, copies of the judgment were directed to be sent to Inspectors-General of Police of all Provinces and Islamabad Capital Territory, who were instructed to apprise all Station House Officers of the law so declared and to ensure that it is followed in letter and spirit throughout the country. Cited Cases: • Jamshed Ahmad v. Muhammad Akram Khan and another 1975 SCMR 149 • Kaura v. The State and others 1983 SCMR 436 • Wajid Ali Khan Durani and others v. Government of Sindh and others 2001 SCMR 1556 • Mst. Anwar Begum v. Station House Officer, Police Station Kalri West, Karachi and 12 others PLD 2005 SC 297 • Ali Muhammad and others v. Syed Bibi and others PLD 2016 SC 484 • Khizer Hayat v. Inspector-General of Police (Punjab), Lahore and seven others PLD 2005 Lahore 470

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S.154---First Information Report (FIR)---Nature, scope and purpose---Information regarding commission of cognizable offence---Held, an FIR under S.154, Cr.P.C. is merely the first information to the police about commission of a cognizable offence; it is not required by law to contain the full or final version of the occurrence, names of all accused, motive, weapon used, eye-witnesses or complete factual details---Object of FIR is only to set the criminal law in motion and enable the police to commence investigation---Subsequent information about the same occurrence, even if containing a different or more detailed narrative, does not become another “first” information---There is no concept in Cr.P.C. of “second” or “third” FIR (SIR/TIR) for the same occurrence; the Code contemplates only one FIR for one incident and one case-number throughout its course. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss.154, 156, 161 & 173---Police Rules, 1934, Rr.24.1 & 25.2---Registration of case and investigation---Single case-number---Recording of divergent versions---Held, upon registration of an FIR under S.154, Cr.P.C. a criminal “case” comes into existence, is assigned a number, and the same number continues till final decision of the matter---During investigation under Ss.156 & 161, Cr.P.C., the investigating officer may, and is obliged to, record any number of versions of the same incident brought to his notice by different persons, but all such versions are to be recorded as statements under S.161, Cr.P.C. in the same case and investigated together---No separate FIR is to be registered for every new or divergent version of the same occurrence---Investigating officer, in terms of R.25.2(3) of Police Rules, 1934, is bound “to find out the truth of the matter under investigation”, discover the actual facts, and arrest the real offender(s), without committing himself prematurely to any one view for or against any person---Final report under S.173, Cr.P.C. must be based on facts discovered during investigation, irrespective of the narrative in FIR or any other version recorded during investigation. H.R.C._10842_P_2018 (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S.154---Multiple FIRs---Same occurrence---Legality of second FIR---Conflicting versions---Held, where commission of a cognizable offence arising out of a particular occurrence has already been reported to the police and an FIR has been registered, the law does not permit registration of a second or subsequent FIR in respect of any fresh or conflicting version of that same occurrence---All later versions, whether advanced by an accused, complainant, or any other person, are to be recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. and investigated in the same case---Practice of registering separate FIRs for counter-versions or additional narratives of the same incident is contrary to the scheme of Cr.P.C. and Police Rules---Courts and police authorities must not treat the FIR as the exclusive or conclusive version; it is only one of the many versions to be tested in investigation---A second FIR in respect of the same occurrence is, therefore, without lawful authority and cannot be ordered merely to accommodate a different narrative of that occurrence. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S.154---Case-law on multiple FIRs---Two lines of authority in precedent---Clarification of correct position---Held, earlier case-law of High Courts revealed two categories: first, a consistent line holding that only one FIR is to be registered and all other versions be recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. in the same case; second, a line permitting registration of second FIRs for counter-versions or different grievances arising from the same occurrence---Supreme Court, after examining both categories, approved the first line of cases as being in accord with the statutory scheme and disapproved the second line as based on misunderstanding of S.154, Cr.P.C. and Police Rules---As regards Supreme Court’s own precedents, it was held that Jamshed Ahmad v. Muhammad Akram Khan (1975 SCMR 149) and Kaura v. The State (1983 SCMR 436) were closer to the correct scheme of the law, whereas Wajid Ali Khan Durani v. Government of Sindh (2001 SCMR 1556), Mst. Anwar Begum v. SHO PS Kalri West, Karachi (PLD 2005 SC 297) and Ali Muhammad v. Syed Bibi (PLD 2016 SC 484) had drifted away from that scheme and thereby contributed to confusion and distortion---Such latter judgments were rendered without proper assistance on the underlying statutory scheme and, to that extent, do not lay down the correct law on permissibility of second FIRs. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss.154 & 161---Courts’ role vis-à-vis investigation---Orders for second FIR on assessment of mala fides in initial investigation---Scope---Held, approach whereby Courts order registration of a second FIR on the premise that the first FIR is “mala fide, dishonest, colourful and motivated”, or that investigation is being misled, is inconsistent with the scheme of Cr.P.C.---Such orders amount to premature value judgments at investigation stage and convert Courts into monitors or supervisors of investigation, a role not contemplated by law---Proper remedy lies in ensuring impartial, comprehensive investigation which must incorporate all versions under S.161, Cr.P.C., rather than multiplying FIRs---Subsequent versions can and must be brought on record within the same case without need for another FIR, and investigation must test each narrative to discover the true facts. (f) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss.200 & 202---Private complaint---Direction for police investigation in complaint case---Powers of arrest and recovery---Efficacious alternative to second FIR---Held, where an aggrieved party is dissatisfied with the version recorded in an already registered FIR, the law provides the remedy of filing a private complaint under Chapter XVI, Cr.P.C.---In terms of S.202(1), Cr.P.C., the Magistrate seised of a private complaint may direct an inquiry or investigation by a Justice of Peace, a police officer or any other person deemed fit---Once such investigation is ordered, the powers described in Part V, Chapter XIV, Cr.P.C. read with S.4(1)(l) (including powers of arrest and recovery) are fully available and do not distinguish between a State case and a complaint case---Misconception that arrest and recovery are not possible in a complaint case was declared erroneous; private complaint with investigation under S.202, Cr.P.C. is an adequate and efficacious remedy and does not justify insistence on a second FIR. (g) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss.54, 55, 157---Police Rules, 1934---Arrest of nominated accused---Nomination per se not sufficient---Reasonable grounds and material required---Held, law does not permit arrest of a person merely because he is nominated as an accused in an FIR or in any version recorded during investigation---Powers of arrest under Ss.54 & 55, Cr.P.C. and relevant Police Rules must be exercised subject to requirements of reasonable complaint, credible information or reasonable suspicion, supported by tangible material within knowledge of the police officer---Arrest encroaches upon personal liberty and must therefore be strictly construed and employed only when sufficient material exists on record to prima facie connect a suspect with the offence---Ordinarily, arrest should be deferred until such material is collected; it is not to be used mechanically or as an automatic consequence of registration of FIR or lodging of any subsequent version. (h) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss.154, 161 & 173---Summary of legal principles---FIR, investigation and final report---Supreme Court crystallized the legal position as follows: (i) Information that a cognizable offence has been committed at a particular time and place is sufficient to require registration of an FIR; (ii) Any narrative accompanying such information is merely the informant’s version and not to be accepted unreservedly as truth; (iii) Upon registration of FIR a criminal case comes into existence and retains one case-number till final decision; (iv) During investigation, the officer may record any number of versions of the same incident under S.161, Cr.P.C. in the same case; no separate FIR is to be recorded for any new version; (v) Investigating officer must investigate from all possible angles, keeping in view every version brought to his notice, and must strive to discover actual facts and real offenders; (vi) No person is to be arrested straightaway merely on nomination in any version; justification, based on material, is necessary; (vii) Final report under S.173, Cr.P.C. must reflect actual facts discovered in investigation, not simply the FIR narrative or any particular party’s version. (i) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S.154---Application to facts of present case---Second FIR in alleged fake police encounter---Held, in the case at hand an FIR had already been registered by the police in respect of the same encounter in which petitioner’s son was killed; investigation was completed and challan submitted---Petitioner thereafter filed a private complaint alleging that her son had been murdered in a staged encounter; accused named therein were summoned and trial on the complaint was in progress---In these circumstances, ordering registration of another FIR on the petitioner’s version of the very same occurrence was held to be not legally warranted under S.154, Cr.P.C. and the principles declared by the Court---Human Rights petition seeking registration of second FIR was accordingly dismissed. (j) Administration of justice---Delay in trial---Directions to trial court---Held, occurrence had taken place more than a decade earlier and the trial court had been seised of the complaint case for many years without significant progress---Such delay and apathy were found to be shocking---Trial court directed to conclude the trial within four months and submit a compliance report to the Registrar, Supreme Court. (k) Criminal justice system---Uniform implementation of law on FIR and investigation---Administrative directions---Held, to ensure uniform application of law declared regarding FIR, multiple versions and investigation, copies of the judgment were directed to be sent to Inspectors-General of Police of all Provinces and Islamabad Capital Territory, who were instructed to apprise all Station House Officers of the law so declared and to ensure that it is followed in letter and spirit throughout the country. Cited Cases: • Jamshed Ahmad v. Muhammad Akram Khan and another 1975 SCMR 149 • Kaura v. The State and others 1983 SCMR 436 • Wajid Ali Khan Durani and others v. Government of Sindh and others 2001 SCMR 1556 • Mst. Anwar Begum v. Station House Officer, Police Station Kalri West, Karachi and 12 others PLD 2005 SC 297 • Ali Muhammad and others v. Syed Bibi and others PLD 2016 SC 484 • Khizer Hayat v. Inspector-General of Police (Punjab), Lahore and seven others PLD 2005 Lahore 470

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art.199---Quashment of FIR---Scope---Held, that High Court has constitutional jurisdiction to quash an FIR where registration or investigation is without lawful authority, but such power is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances---FIR may be quashed where, on the face of allegations, no cognizable offence is made out, or where criminal proceedings amount to misuse of legal authority and abuse of process. Cited Cases: • Ayesha Tayyab v. Station House Officer, Police Station Cantt., District Sialkot and others 2025 SCMR 1117 • FIA through Director General, FIA and others v. Syed Hamid Ali Shah and others PLD 2023 SC 265 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----Ss.154 & 156---FIR---Cognizable offence---Test---Held, that FIR can be registered and investigation conducted only in respect of a cognizable offence---Court is to examine contents of FIR to determine whether allegations, taken at face value, disclose a cognizable offence; mere mention of penal sections is not determinative. (c) Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act (XX of 2018)---- ----Ss.29, 30 & 32---Healthcare establishment without registration/licence---Qualified medical practitioner---Regulatory mechanism---Held, that alleged operation of a healthcare/beauty clinic without registration or licence falls primarily within the regulatory scheme of the Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018---Contraventions are to be processed through inspection, inquiry, show-cause notice, hearing and complaint by the Authority, and not ordinarily through police-initiated FIR. (d) Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act (XX of 2018)---- ----S.32---Cognizance by Court---Complaint by Authority---Held, that prosecution under the Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018 is complaint-based and authority-driven; no Court assumes jurisdiction unless a written complaint is filed by the Authority---No FIR could be registered against a qualified doctor in contravention of the statutory mechanism provided by S.32. (e) Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act (XX of 2018)---- ----S.30(3)---Quackery---Cognizable and non-bailable offence---Qualified practitioner distinguished---Held, that S.30(3) creates a specific aggravated offence of quackery by a person who does not qualify to be registered or licensed under the Act---The provision does not automatically apply to a qualified and registered medical practitioner alleged to have committed regulatory non-compliance such as operating without licence renewal or procedural authorization. (f) Islamabad Healthcare Regulatory Authority Regulations, 2023---- ----Regs.30 to 34---Inspection team---Powers of inspection---Hearing Committee---Opportunity of hearing---Held, that Regs.30 to 34 create a structured administrative mechanism for inspection, reporting, show-cause notice and hearing before adverse action---These provisions are regulatory and procedural in nature and do not by themselves create a standalone criminal offence warranting immediate registration of FIR. (g) Islamabad Capital Territory Building Control Regulations, 2020---- ----Reg.2.1.7---Residential premises---Home occupation by doctor/professional---Commercial use allegation---Held, that Reg.2.1.7 permits a residential house to be used by a resident professional, including a doctor, for home occupation subject to prior permission, limited use of space, preservation of residential character and annual charges---Breach of such condition, at best, entails civil or administrative consequences such as charges, fine, sealing or municipal action; it does not create a cognizable criminal offence. (h) Criminal Law---- ----Spurious/unregistered medicines---Vague allegation---Absence of specific recovery and regulatory determination---Held, that allegation of use/storage of unregistered, substandard or spurious medicines could not found a cognizable offence where FIR failed to identify any specific drug, batch number, manufacturer, expiry date, classification, recovery memo, laboratory analysis, DRAP determination, public complaint, injury or source of procurement. (i) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----S.201---Causing disappearance of evidence---Ingredients---Held, that S.201 PPC requires prima facie material showing commission of an offence and deliberate disappearance of identifiable evidence with intent to screen an offender---Vague assertion that incriminating material was removed before raid, without identifying the article/document/medicine allegedly destroyed or concealed, does not satisfy foundational ingredients of S.201 PPC. (j) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----S.109---Abetment---Regulatory non-compliance---Held, that abetment could not be inferred merely from allegations of operating a clinic or using residential premises for professional activity unless FIR disclosed specific acts of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid relating to a cognizable offence. (k) Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)---- ----S.5(2)---Illegal gratification/corruption---Regulatory fee amounts---Held, that where prescribed IHRA licence fee was Rs.10,000 and CDA home-occupation annual charges were Rs.50,000, and no material showed any specific demand, receipt or quantified illegal consideration, allegation of corruption/illegal gratification remained unsupported and could not sustain criminal proceedings. (l) Criminal Law---- ----Special statute providing complete mechanism---Criminal prosecution through FIR---Held, that where special statutes provide complete mechanisms for inspection, inquiry, adjudication, hearing, penalties and complaint-based prosecution, criminal machinery cannot be invoked to convert regulatory or municipal non-compliance into cognizable offences unless the essential ingredients of a cognizable offence are clearly disclosed. (m) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art.199---Regulatory dispute converted into criminal prosecution---Abuse of process---Held, that continuation of criminal proceedings based on vague allegations of healthcare licence violation, CDA home occupation breach, unspecified spurious medicines, and unsupported disappearance of evidence would amount to misuse of criminal process and abuse of law. Disposition: Writ petition was allowed; FIR No.111 dated 18.12.2025 registered at Police Station FIA/ACC, Islamabad under Ss.109/201, PPC, Ss.14 & 30 of Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018, and S.5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was quashed; petitioner was left at liberty to seek appropriate remedy against complainant and FIA officials, if so advised; no order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S.156(1), definition of “officer-in-charge of a police station” under S.4(p)---Investigation and raid by CIA staff---Legality---Raid conducted by CIA officials without prior intimation to local police or record entry in police station register---Held, CIA personnel are not “officers-in-charge” within the meaning of S.4(p), Cr.P.C. and thus have no lawful authority to investigate or conduct search and seizure operations independently---Any investigation or recovery carried out by such unauthorized agency is void ab initio---Reliance placed on State v. Bashir (PLD 1997 SC 408). (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997--- ----S.9(c)---Recovery of narcotics---Proof of conscious possession---Absence of link evidence---Recovery made from an iron stand in house basement, not from person of accused---No pointation or disclosure leading to recovery established---Prosecution failed to prove ownership, tenancy, or possession of house by accused---Held, mere presence at scene does not constitute conscious possession or knowledge under law; essential chain of custody and possession not established. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Contradictions in evidence---Material discrepancy regarding location of recovery---FIR stated recovery from House, while I.O. (PW-3) deposed recovery from house in Sohan---Contradiction on material point of location created serious doubt as to authenticity of recovery proceedings, thereby undermining prosecution case. (d) ---Standard of proof in narcotics cases---Principle of benefit of doubt---Scope---In offences under CNSA, prosecution must establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt owing to severity of punishment---Any material infirmity or contradiction must be resolved in favour of accused---Followed Ameer Zeb v. State (PLD 2012 SC 380). Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted of charge under S.9-C, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and S.3/4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order; appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Summary: Pending --- blasphemy case.