Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898—Sections 154, 22-A & 561-A—Registration of FIR—Duty of police—Upon receipt of information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, the Station House Officer is under a statutory obligation to reduce the information into writing and register an FIR—Failure to do so constitutes dereliction of statutory duty—Every member of the public may set the criminal law in motion; lodging of FIR not confined to the aggrieved person—Amanullah Khan v. The State (2011 PCr.LJ 774) followed. (b) Ex-Officio Justice of Peace—Refusal to direct registration of FIR on ground of pending civil suit—Held: legally untenable—Civil and criminal liabilities are distinct and may proceed concurrently—Mere pendency of civil proceedings no bar to criminal action—Principle reaffirmed from Zarar Ismail v. Senior Superintendent of Police (2022 SCR 1225). (c) Section 561-A, Cr.P.C.—Scope and object—Inherent jurisdiction of High Court is corrective, plenary, and ex debito justitiae—To be exercised to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process—Technical defects or lack of formal authorization cannot defeat exercise of such powers—Abdul Majeed v. Abdul Samad (2024 SCR 803) relied upon. (d) Power of attorney—Authority to initiate criminal proceedings—Technical defect in authorization cannot nullify exercise of inherent jurisdiction when abuse of process is evident—Procedural formalities must yield to substantive justice. (e) Supreme Court’s constitutional jurisdiction—Article 42-A, AJK Interim Constitution, 1974—Where subordinate courts’ orders are manifestly contrary to binding precedent and perpetuate injustice, Supreme Court may intervene to correct illegality and prevent abuse of process. Disposition: Appeal allowed—Orders of High Court (23.04.2025) and Ex-Officio Justice of Peace (30.08.2023) set aside—Station House Officer directed to register FIR and proceed in accordance with law.

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: Bail granted --- (a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ----Ss. 497(2), 22-A & 22-B---Pre-arrest bail---Further inquiry---Cross versions---Where FIR and cross version recorded at same date and time arising out of same incident---Conflicting versions made it impossible at bail stage to determine aggressor and victim---Case required further inquiry to ascertain culpability---Benefit of doubt at bail stage extended to accused---Pre-arrest bail confirmed. (b) Criminal trial ----Cross version---Effect---In cases of cross versions, roles of complainant and accused may be reversible---Court required to tentatively assess whether reasonable grounds exist to believe commission of offence---Where such assessment created reasonable doubt regarding guilt, accused entitled to bail under S.497(2), Cr.P.C. (c) Bail jurisprudence ----Principles governing grant of bail---Tentative assessment---At bail stage, deeper appreciation of evidence not permissible---Object of bail is to secure attendance of accused at trial, not to punish under-trial prisoner---Detention unjustified where material does not prima facie establish guilt---Case falling within ambit of further inquiry. (d) Procedural fairness ----Condemnation unheard---Ad-interim bail recalled by High Court---Supreme Court emphasized fair hearing---Where cross version and circumstances required further inquiry, recall of ad-interim bail not justified. (e) Conduct of trial ----Expeditious trial---Where challan already submitted---Trial Court directed to frame charge and conclude trial expeditiously---Misuse or abuse of concession of bail to entail cancellation upon application by prosecution or complainant. Cited cases: • (No specific case law cited in judgment) Disposition: Criminal Petition for leave to appeal converted into appeal; appeal allowed; ad-interim pre-arrest bail confirmed on same terms and conditions; observations held to be tentative and not to prejudice merits of trial; liberty granted to prosecution/complainant to seek cancellation of bail in case of misuse.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 199 Writ petition—Scope—Police inaction—Investigation and recording of cross-version—Petitioner, wife of deceased Dr. Muhammad Saeed, sought directions to register her cross-version against stepchildren of the deceased and take action against Police officials for allegedly neglecting evidence—Held, petitioner had already been investigated, declared innocent by the I.O., and placed in column No. 2 of Challan, but the Judicial Magistrate disagreed—Private complaint proceeded and ultimately both the petitioner and co-accused were acquitted during the pendency of writ petition—High Court held that once a full trial had concluded, issuing fresh directions for investigation would be futile—Petitioner has alternative remedy of filing private complaint—Petition dismissed as misconceived. Cited Case: PLD 2018 SC 595 (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898: ----S. 161, 173, 22-A & 22-B Investigation—Cross-version—Role of Magistrate—Petitioner sought to register cross-version under S. 22-A Cr.P.C., alleging bias and selective investigation by Police—Held, statement of petitioner was recorded and acknowledged, but no further action was taken—Since trial concluded with acquittal of accused, fresh investigation not justified—Petitioner may pursue a private complaint under the law—Court declined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. (c) Administration of justice: **----Police investigation—Allegation of bias—Held, where competent court has tried the matter and rendered judgment based on evidence, investigation proceedings lose relevance—Any further investigation or direction under constitutional jurisdiction would be parallel to the concluded trial—Doctrine of finality applies—No merit found in plea to reopen investigation on speculative or belated assertions. ----Disposition: Writ petition dismissed—Petitioner’s grievance pertains to Police inaction and alleged biased investigation; however, a full trial has been concluded and petitioner acquitted—Direction for fresh investigation found unwarranted—Petitioner advised to pursue private complaint, if so advised. "Respondent no. 2 and 4 be directed to act according law on the light of cross version of the petitioner and also direct the respondent no.1 to 4 do needfull act to search the real culprit of murder"

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss. 22-A & 22-B---Application for registration of FIR---Dismissal of application by Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Scope---Petitioner, a former student of IBA Karachi, sought registration of FIR alleging mental torture, humiliation, and blackmail by respondents after her admission was terminated for academic reasons---Prior attempt to lodge FIR with police allegedly failed---Inquiry conducted by SHO revealed petitioner had already availed a scholarship under BBSHRRDB program and was permitted to attend classes again on humanitarian grounds---Misconduct and disruptive behavior in class led to her removal---Objections of proposed accused noted in SHO report, citing overage and ineligibility for stipend---Held, no cognizable offence made out; both the Ex-officio Justice of Peace and the High Court found no illegality in the inquiry or dismissal---Petitioner left at liberty to seek alternate remedy under the law.(b) Administration of justice----Concurrent findings of fact---No interference by Supreme Court---Scope---Where two forums below concurrently hold that no cognizable offence is made out and petitioner has alternate civil remedies, Supreme Court would not interfere in absence of legal error or miscarriage of justice---Petition found meritless and dismissed accordingly.Disposition: Criminal petition dismissed.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 200, 202, 203 & 204---Direct complaint---Scrutiny of allegations before issuance of process---Safeguards against frivolous and vexatious complaints---Petitioner filed a direct complaint under S. 200 Cr.P.C. against 56 police officials and private persons, alleging unlawful trespass, abduction, and theft---Trial court took cognizance and issued bailable warrants but failed to scrutinize the allegations effectively---High Court set aside the order, holding that the complaint was a retaliatory measure against an earlier FIR lodged against the petitioner---Held, trial courts must carefully evaluate complaints under Ss. 202 & 203 Cr.P.C. to prevent harassment, victimization, and misuse of legal process---A complaint should not be entertained where allegations lack prima facie evidence or appear to be motivated by mala fide intent. Cited Cases: • Abdul Muktadar v. District & Sessions Judge, Jhang, 2010 SCMR 194 • Abdul Wahab Khan v. Muhammad Nawaz, 2000 SCMR 1904 • Zafar v. Umer Hayat, 2010 SCMR 1816 (b) Malafide Intent & Retaliatory Litigation ----Abuse of legal process---Filing of direct complaint as a counterblast to prior criminal proceedings---FIR No. 03/2022 had been registered against the petitioner under Ss. 395, 353, 337-H(ii), 342 PPC for allegedly attacking police officers and robbing government ammunition---Held, the direct complaint was a deliberate retaliatory measure filed after the said FIR, with the intent to counteract legal action against the petitioner---Trial courts must be vigilant against such abuse of process to ensure that legal mechanisms are not misused for personal vendettas. (c) Judicial Inquiry & Evidentiary Deficiencies ----Preliminary inquiry under S. 202 Cr.P.C.---Failure of complainant to substantiate allegations---Petitioner’s complaint alleged theft of cash, furniture, and vehicles, but he failed to produce receipts or ownership documents---Two witnesses presented during the judicial inquiry contradicted the petitioner’s version, failing to identify the accused or substantiate claims of abduction---Held, a complaint must stand on its own merits and be supported by independent evidence---Trial courts must consider judicial inquiry reports before issuing process under S. 204 Cr.P.C. to prevent frivolous litigation. (d) Scope of Trial Court's Discretion ----Duty of trial courts to scrutinize complaints before issuing process---Legal requirement to filter out frivolous complaints---Held, the trial court failed to appreciate the judicial inquiry report, which found no prima facie case against the accused---A complaint must not be entertained unless there is substantive material evidence to support the allegations---High Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction to prevent unwarranted legal action. ----- Disposition: Petition dismissed. Leave to appeal refused. Stay application (Cr.M.A.No.124-K/2022) dismissed.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 22-A & 22-B—Application for direction to register FIR—Scope and discretion of Justice of Peace Applicant sought registration of FIR under Ss. 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C., alleging theft of dowry articles by his brother and nephews—Learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace dismissed the application, holding the dispute to be civil in nature arising out of inheritance—High Court upheld the finding, observing that the Justice of Peace correctly exercised discretion in declining to issue direction for registration of FIR where the underlying dispute was patently civil and the police had already declined to record the applicant’s version. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 22-A & 22-B—Alternate remedy—Filing of direct complaint When the police refuse to register FIR and the version of the complainant is not accepted, the appropriate course is to file a direct complaint before the competent court, enabling the complainant to lead his own evidence—Justice of Peace not bound to direct registration of FIR in such circumstances—Adequate remedy through private complaint considered sufficient. Habibullah v. Political Assistant, Dera Ghazi Khan (2005 SCMR 951) relied upon. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ----Art. 199—Writ jurisdiction—Judicial restraint High Court observed that even under Art.199, issuance of writ for registration of FIR is not obligatory in every case—Court may exercise judicial restraint where adequate alternative remedies exist and the matter is essentially civil in character. (d) Criminal jurisprudence—Civil disputes given criminal colour—Principle Courts must guard against conversion of family or property disputes into criminal proceedings—Where facts disclose civil liability or inheritance contest rather than a cognizable offence, criminal process should not be invoked to settle private grievances. Cited case: • Habibullah v. Political Assistant, Dera Ghazi Khan 2005 SCMR 951 (g) Disposition — Application dismissed—Applicant advised to avail remedy of direct complaint before competent court—Observations made not to prejudice any future proceedings.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure—Registration of FIR on complaint—Duty under S. 154 Cr.P.C.; supervisory role of Justice of Peace ---- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898—Ss. 154, 22-A, 173, Complainant’s application disclosed cognizable offences; police failed to act under S.154. Justice of Peace rightly directed registration of FIR and further proceedings per law. Where more than one FIR/version surfaces, investigation must proceed and, upon report under S.173, the trial Court determines which version to try and whether any redundant FIR requires quashment; premature interference is unwarranted. (b) Inherent jurisdiction—Quashing/halting investigation—Exceptional grounds only ----Cr.P.C.—S. 561-A, Invocation of S.561-A to set aside a direction for FIR registration or to stifle investigation is impermissible save in exceptional circumstances. Investigation is the prerogative of the police and should not be judicially interdicted in routine. (c) Public servants—Police officials—No blanket immunity for acts done under colour of office, Official status does not confer immunity from criminal liability. Allegations against police officials performing “official duties” do not bar registration of a case; all persons are equally amenable to law, and accountability cannot be avoided by uniform or office. Disposition: Petition for leave to appeal refused; High Court judgment dated 09-07-2024 affirmed; order of Justice of Peace directing registration of FIR to stand; investigation to proceed in accordance with law. Cited Provisions: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898—Ss. 154, 22-A, 173, 561-A.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure—Cognizance by Magistrate on Negative Report of Investigating Officer (IO):----Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.), Ss. 173 & 497—Magistrate’s powers to disagree with IO’s report—Requirement of supporting evidenceThe Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the applicants despite a negative police report, which had placed their names in Column No.2 of the challan. The Supreme Court held that while a Magistrate can disagree with an IO’s findings, such discretion must be exercised judiciously. The Magistrate must rely on incriminating material available in the record—mere allegations in an FIR do not suffice to justify taking cognizance. The absence of forensic or other supporting evidence against the applicants meant the Magistrate erred in law by proceeding against them.----Cited Law:• Cr.P.C., S. 173 (Challan Submission Procedure)• Cr.P.C., S. 497 (Placement of Innocent Accused in Column No.2)(b) Cybercrime—Lack of Evidence Against Accused in Digital Offenses:----Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (PECA), Ss. 20, 21(d), 24—Forensic examination of mobile phones—Standard of proof in cybercrime casesThe case involved allegations of cyber harassment, blackmail, and sharing of obscene content under PECA 2016. The Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) seized the accused persons’ mobile phones for forensic analysis, but the forensic report found no evidence of the alleged WhatsApp messages or explicit content on the applicants’ devices. The Court ruled that mere accusations without forensic or digital proof do not justify prosecution under PECA 2016.----Cited Law:• Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (PECA), S. 20 (Malicious Online Content)• PECA, S. 21(d) (Cyber Harassment)• PECA, S. 24 (Cyberstalking and Threats)(c) Criminal Law—Misuse of Criminal Proceedings Against Innocent Parties:----Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Cr.P.C.), Ss. 22-A & 22-B—False implication of accused—Judicial scrutiny of complaintsInitially, the complainant filed a cybercrime complaint against her ex-fiancé (main accused) but later expanded the scope to include his relatives (the applicants). The Court observed that no credible evidence linked the applicants to the alleged offenses, and their names were added without any forensic proof. The Magistrate failed to assess the credibility of the allegations properly. The Court ruled that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool for personal vendettas and set aside the Magistrate’s order.----Cited Law:• Cr.P.C., Ss. 22-A & 22-B (Powers of Justice of Peace to Register FIRs)• Cr.P.C., S. 173 (Procedure for Challan Submission and Cognizance)(d) Cyber Evidence—Admissibility and Weight of Digital Proof:----Use of WhatsApp messages and screenshots as evidence—Forensic authentication requiredThe complainant presented WhatsApp screenshots to show that one of the accused (Applicant No.5) had threatened her. However, the FIA’s forensic report confirmed that the phone in question belonged to the main accused (Imran), who was using it under the applicant’s name. The Court ruled that screenshots alone do not constitute admissible evidence unless authenticated by forensic analysis. In cybercrime cases, scientific verification is essential before attributing an offense to a specific individual.----Cited Law:• Pakistan Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 (PETO), S. 3 (Authenticity of Electronic Records)• PECA 2016, S. 20 (Reputation-Damaging Content Must be Proven)(e) Final Judgment—Application Allowed, Applicants Declared Innocent:----Magistrate’s order set aside—Applicants’ names removed from the challan—Liberty to re-add accused if future evidence arisesThe Supreme Court declared the applicants innocent, ruling that the Magistrate’s decision lacked legal justification. However, the prosecution retains the right to re-indict the applicants if new incriminating evidence emerges during trial. The Court warned against frivolous criminal cases and emphasized that criminal law should not be misused to settle personal disputes.----Disposition:Application Allowed—Magistrate’s order set aside—Applicants’ names removed from the challan—Prosecution may reinstate charges if new evidence emerges.

Summary: Background:This case arises from a conflict within the legal community, involving Munawar Alam Khan and Qurban Ali Mallano among others, centered around Bar election contests. Following a physical altercation linked to these elections, Munawar Alam Khan sought to have an FIR registered against the respondents, which the police declined. The refusal led to the filing of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.508 of 2020, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Sukkur, maintaining the order dated 21.12.2022. This decision was later upheld by the High Court of Sindh. Munawar Alam Khan, dissatisfied with the lower courts' decisions, petitioned the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the legality of these orders.----Issues:The legality of the lower courts' refusal to direct the registration of an FIR against the respondents.The appropriate application of the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction in matters involving the non-registration of FIRs and internal disputes within the legal community.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court, after reviewing the submissions and the existing legal framework, concluded that the petition lacked merit. The Court observed that the legal system's procedural laws, specifically Sections 22-A and 22-B of the Cr.P.C., were often misused to settle personal scores, particularly among lawyers. The Court emphasized the importance of evaluating each case's unique facts and circumstances rather than mechanically directing police actions like FIR registration, investigation, and prosecution.The Court dismissed the petition and declined the leave to appeal, reinforcing the principle that judicial intervention in matters of FIR registration and subsequent legal actions should be cautious and based on a comprehensive investigation to prevent the misuse of legal procedures for personal vendettas.----Citations/Precedents:Rai Ashraf and others vs. Muhammad Saleem and others (PLD 2010 SC 691): Highlighted the cautious approach required in directing police to register FIRs.Trustees of the Port of Karachi vs. Muhammad Saleem (1994 SCMR 2213): Emphasized the need for judicial discretion in matters of legal procedural misuse.The State vs. Mushtaq Ahmed (PLD 1973 SC 413): Underlined the importance of case-specific evaluations before judicial directives for legal actions.