Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199— Constitutional petition—Quashing of FIR—Scope and limitations—Petitioners sought quashing of FIRs registered under Section 25-D of the Telegraph Act, 1885 and Sections 354, 506, 337-H(2), and 34, P.P.C.—Held, that Article 199 of the Constitution affords a discretionary and summary remedy which is not meant for determination of disputed facts or factual controversies requiring recording of evidence—Where FIRs disclose commission of cognizable offences, constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to quash the same—Remedy under Article 199 cannot be used to obstruct or preempt investigation and trial—Such intervention by High Courts has consistently been deprecated by the superior judiciary—Jurisdiction under Article 199 must be exercised only where no adequate alternate remedy is available— Cited Cases: • Amir Jamal v. Malik Zahoor-ul-Haq 2011 SCMR 1023 • Muhammad Younas Khan v. Government of N.W.F.P. 1993 SCMR 618 • Mst. Kaniz Fatima v. Muhammad Salim 2001 SCMR 1493 • Muslimabad Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Mrs. Siddiqa Faiz PLD 2008 SC 135 • President, All Pakistan Women Association v. Muhammad Akbar Awan 2020 SCMR 260 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 63, 190, 249-A & 551— Alternative remedies—Exhaustion of statutory avenues before invoking writ jurisdiction—Accused person seeking quashing of FIR must first avail statutory remedies—Held, that a person aggrieved by registration of an FIR has multiple remedies: (i) before the Investigating Officer, (ii) before supervisory police officers under Section 551, Cr.P.C., (iii) before a Magistrate under Section 63, Cr.P.C. for discharge, (iv) under Rule 24.7 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, (v) before a Magistrate under Section 190, Cr.P.C., and (vi) acquittal under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C.—Only after exhaustion of such remedies can constitutional jurisdiction be invoked. Cited Case: • Qaisar Mahmood v. Muhammad Sham PLD 1998 Lahore 72 **(c) Criminal Procedure—Investigation— ----Quashing of FIR— Disputed questions of fact—Scope of interference by High Court—Held, that investigation of criminal offences falls within the exclusive domain of the Investigating Officer and the Trial Court—High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, cannot act as a fact-finding forum or interfere in ongoing investigations—Where FIRs contain allegations attracting cognizable offences, any interference at pre-trial stage is unwarranted and amounts to judicial overreach—Such interference has been disapproved in multiple precedents— Cited Cases: • Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 18 • Shahnaz Begum v. Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Baluchistan PLD 1971 SC 677 • Brig. (Retd.) Imtiaz Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan 1994 SCMR 2142 • Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq 2006 SCMR 276 • Dr. Ghulam Mustafa v. The State 2008 SCMR 76 • Ajmeel Khan v. Abdur Rahim PLD 2009 SC 102 (d) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 10-A— Fair trial—Direction to Investigation Officer—Petitioners urged the Court to direct the Investigating Officers to conduct investigation in a fair and impartial manner—Held, that Investigation Officers are legally bound to investigate fairly and transparently—Court expressed confidence that Investigating Officers shall proceed without fear or favour and in accordance with law to protect petitioners' rights under Article 10-A of the Constitution. Disposition: Petitions dismissed—High Court declined to quash FIRs in constitutional jurisdiction—Held that factual controversies and ongoing investigations are beyond the scope of Article 199—Petitioners advised to pursue statutory remedies and let investigation and trial take their lawful course.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Discharge of accused by Magistrate---Scope of judicial review---Held, Magistrate’s discretion under S. 63 Cr.P.C. to discharge an accused must be exercised judiciously and in accordance with law---Where accused was discharged on first production without allowing police opportunity to complete investigation despite presence of statements under S. 161 Cr.P.C., such exercise of discretion deemed premature and mechanical---High Court under constitutional jurisdiction can set aside such orders to prevent miscarriage of justice. (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898) ----Ss. 63 & 167---Discharge of accused---Request for physical remand---Discretion of Magistrate---Held, Magistrate erred in discharging accused at initial stage without evaluating the nature of allegations and documentary support from complainant/superdar---Police must be afforded reasonable time for investigation before determination of accused’s role---Failure to do so vitiates judicial process. (c) Criminal Law--- Theft of agricultural produce---Allegation by court-appointed superdar---Evidentiary value---Held, complaint lodged by a Superdar duly appointed by revenue authorities to oversee public property, including standing crops, is not equivalent to a private dispute---Discharge of accused in such context requires more scrutiny, especially where theft of substantial value (Rs. 13,00,000) is alleged and supported by preliminary statements. (d) Judicial Practice and Procedure ----Discharge of accused---Premature discharge---Scope---Held, where accused was discharged without conducting proper inquiry or allowing investigation to develop, Magistrate’s act amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction fairly---Remand request should have been considered on merits with reference to allegations and pending inquiry. Disposition: Petition allowed; impugned discharge order set aside; remand request of Investigating Officer remitted for reconsideration by Magistrate in accordance with law.