Summary: The Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that FIRs cannot be quashed once a challan has been filed, affirming the limited scope for judicial intervention during the investigative process. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi emphasized that "quashment of FIR during investigation tantamounts to throttling the investigation, which is not permissible in law," underlining that such judicial powers are reserved for truly exceptional cases. ------ - Key Points of the Judgment include: ------ 1) Judicial and Investigative Roles Are Distinct: Justice Rizvi highlighted the complementary, non-overlapping roles of the judiciary and law enforcement, stating that law enforcement is obligated under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to investigate cognizable offences. Courts should not interfere with this duty unless the case is extraordinary. ------ 2) Concurrent Civil and Criminal Proceedings: The judgment clarified that a concurrent civil dispute does not preclude criminal proceedings. Justice Rizvi referenced precedent, stating that "a criminal case must be allowed to proceed on its own merits, regardless of any parallel civil matters." Criminal and civil cases can coexist and be adjudicated independently. ------ 3) Grounds for Quashment Must Be Exceptional: FIR quashment is only permissible if there is clear evidence of misuse of legal authority or if the allegations lack legal basis. Justice Rizvi noted that concerns over conviction probability should be handled within trial proceedings and not preempt the investigation. ----- 4) No Premature Judicial Intervention: The Court emphasized that quashing an FIR should not impede the police's statutory role in evidence gathering. Interference should be limited to cases where allegations unequivocally indicate no offence or a clear abuse of process. ------ This case involves Civil Petitions No. 671-L and 672-L of 2017, where the State challenged the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench’s decision to quash FIR No. 58/2012. This FIR, registered on August 2, 2012, alleged that the respondents fraudulently transferred significant state land in Tehsil Jalalpur to private persons using forged orders from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. An inquiry by the Anti-Corruption Establishment (ACE) revealed irregularities, leading to FIR registration. However, the respondents contended that the FIR was baseless and filed with malafide intent, ultimately convincing the High Court to quash it. ------Issues ------1) Whether the High Court erred in quashing an FIR involving alleged fraudulent land transfers under Article 199 of the Constitution. ------2) Whether the existence of a civil dispute negates the necessity for criminal proceedings. ------3) Whether the High Court’s quashing of the FIR was justified based on the improbability of conviction. ------Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, finding that quashing the FIR was improper. Key points of reasoning include: The High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 199 to quash FIRs is limited to cases where the FIR is evidently without legal basis or constitutes an abuse of legal authority. Criminal proceedings should not be prematurely quashed, especially when material evidence supports a cognizable offense. The existence of a civil dispute does not preclude criminal liability; both civil and criminal proceedings can proceed concurrently if the facts disclose a criminal offense. Probable conviction or acquittal is a matter for trial courts to decide, and without strong evidence of malafide intent by investigative authorities, the FIR should not have been quashed at this stage. ------Citations/Precedents Ajmeel Khan v. Abdul Rahim and others (PLD 2009 SC 102) – On the complementary roles of judiciary and police and the conditions under which an FIR may be quashed. FIA, Director General FIA and others v. Syed Hamid Ali Shah and others (PLD 2023 SC 265) – Reaffirming the High Court’s power to quash FIRs when the allegations do not constitute a cognizable offense. Seema Fareed and Others v. The State and another (2008 SCMR 839) – Civil disputes do not bar criminal proceedings if criminal liability is indicated. Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2021 SC 5041) – Guidelines on judicial restraint in staying investigations and quashing FIRs in India. Mst. Tayyeba Ambareen v. Shafqat Ali Kiyani (2023 SCMR 246), Amir Jamal v. Malik Zahoor-ul-Haq (2011 SCMR 1023), Fida Hussain v. Mst Saiqa (2011 SCMR 1990) – High Court’s limited scope under Article 199 in cases requiring factual determinations. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, thereby reinstating the FIR for investigation and trial.

Summary: Background: The criminal appeals stem from a judgment by the Ehtesab Court No.1, Muzaffarabad, dated 22.07.2023. The main appellant was convicted under sections 420, 468, 467, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced to seven years of imprisonment for each offense, alongside a fine and an order to repay Rs. 17,60,579 received as salary. Co-accused, Aftab Aziz and Manzoor Hussain Awan, were acquitted due to insufficient evidence proving their mens rea. ----Issues: 1- Whether the judgment of the Ehtesab Court complied with the mandatory requirements under section 367 Cr.PC, particularly regarding specifying sentences for distinct offenses. 2- Whether the Ehtesab Court properly addressed objections about the reference’s validity, including its preparation and approval as per the Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001. 3- Whether the acquittal of co-accused Aftab Aziz and Manzoor Hussain Awan was justified in light of their alleged involvement in the promotion of Muhammad Taufeeq Kiani based on a forged degree. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Judgment Compliance with Section 367 Cr.PC: The Ehtesab Court failed to comply with section 367 Cr.PC by not specifying separate sentences for each distinct offense. This non-compliance rendered the judgment anomalous and legally infirm. Validity of Reference: The Ehtesab Court did not adequately address objections regarding the reference’s preparation and approval as per section 21 of the Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001, nor did it resolve the issue of the reference being time-barred. Acquittal of Co-Accused: The Ehtesab Court acquitted Aftab Aziz and Manzoor Hussain Awan without considering the possibility of convicting them under offenses proven through evidence, even if not mentioned in the reference. This oversight indicated a failure to properly appreciate the evidence and apply relevant legal principles. The High Court found that the Ehtesab Court's judgment lacked detailed reasoning and proper discussion of evidence, failing to address the core issues raised by the parties. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the Ehtesab Court for a fresh decision, directing it to properly appreciate the evidence and address all objections within three months. ----Citations/Precedents: 1991 P Cr.L J 2272: Emphasized the necessity of specifying separate sentences for each offense under section 367 Cr.PC. 2016 SCMR 1190: Reinforced that a court must clearly award separate sentences for distinct offenses, and failing to do so renders the judgment illegal. 2012 MLD 633: Highlighted that a judgment must discuss evidence, provide reasons for decisions, and address all points raised during arguments to avoid being deemed incomplete or flawed.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. to quash FIR No. 17/2023 dated 19.12.2023, registered under sections 467/468, 471/477-A, 34/409-APC and 5(2) PCA at Police Station Anti Corruption Muzaffarabad. The petitioner argued that an earlier FIR No. 153/2020 had already been registered regarding the same occurrence and facts, making the subsequent FIR unjustified. ----Issues: 1- Whether the registration of a subsequent FIR No. 17/2023 for the same occurrence is justified. 2- Whether local police have jurisdiction to investigate public servants involved in scheduled offences. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome --Justification for Subsequent FIR: The court found that the two FIRs were distinct in nature and scope. The first FIR No. 153/2020 was registered against private persons by local police, while the second FIR No. 17/2023 was registered by the Anti-Corruption Establishment against public servants after an inquiry revealed their involvement in fraud and corruption. The court held that the Anti-Corruption Establishment is competent to investigate public servants in scheduled offences, which local police cannot do. The second FIR was thus justified and necessary for the proper investigation of the offences involving public servants. --Jurisdiction of Local Police: The court reiterated that local police do not have jurisdiction to register or investigate cases against public servants in scheduled offences. Such investigations fall within the exclusive purview of the Anti-Corruption Establishment. Citing precedents (PLJ 1998 Lahore 1651, PLJ 2018 AJK 105, and 2000 UC 580), the court emphasized that the Anti-Corruption Establishment was the appropriate authority to handle the investigation against the public servants involved in this case. The petition to quash FIR No. 17/2023 was dismissed, upholding the registration of the FIR by the Anti-Corruption Establishment. The court found that there was no illegality in the registration of the second FIR as it was necessary to investigate the involvement of public servants in the alleged offences. ----Citations/Precedents: PLJ 1998 Lahore 1651 PLJ 2018 AJK 105 2000 UC 580

Summary: (a) Specific Performance of Contract: ----Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 11--- Suit for specific performance---Burden of proof---Applicant’s claim based on an agreement to sell allegedly executed by the deceased seller---Execution of agreement and payment of sale consideration found doubtful---Failure to prove valid execution of sale agreement due to inconsistencies in witnesses' statements, lack of receipt of payment, and questionable venue of agreement execution---Trial Court and Appellate Court concurrently held that the agreement was not proved and dismissed the suit accordingly---Findings upheld by the Revisional Court. (b) Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872), S. 67 & 73: ----Proof of signature---Comparison of signatures---Applicants alleged that the deceased seller had executed an agreement of sale; however, the seller's legal heirs disputed the authenticity of the signature---Court compared the signatures on the disputed agreement with an admitted document and found material differences---No endorsement on the agreement indicating proper identification of the seller at the time of execution---Execution of agreement held to be highly doubtful. (c) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), O. VI, R. 17 & O. VII, R. 11: ----Pleadings---Effect of lack of cogent evidence---Applicants failed to establish the authenticity of the alleged sale agreement and did not produce independent, reliable witnesses to corroborate their claim---Trial Court, Appellate Court, and Revisional Court found the case to be unsubstantiated and based on a doubtful transaction---Findings upheld, and revision dismissed. (d) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898), Ss. 467, 468 & 471: ----Forgery and fraudulent documents---Allegations of fabricated sale agreement---Respondents contended that the agreement relied upon by the applicants was fraudulent, created with mala fide intent, and executed at a place unrelated to the parties or the subject property---Court observed that the document was allegedly executed at Sukkur despite the availability of notarial and revenue offices at Ghotki, where the parties and land were situated---Such circumstances raised serious doubts about the authenticity of the document---Legal heirs of the deceased seller entitled to seek legal recourse against fraudulent actions. (e) Revision Jurisdiction: ----Scope of interference---Revisional Court refrains from interfering with concurrent findings of fact unless there is an illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional defect---Trial and Appellate Courts rendered well-reasoned judgments based on evidence and applicable law---Findings not suffering from any legal infirmity---Revision dismissed accordingly.

Summary: Getting frequent adjournments by the concerned parties, during trial of the case, causes unnecessary delay in conclusion of the trial and is alarming. Words on such terms mentioned in Section: 344 Cr.P.C. is not without any significance and can be safely interpreted as including power/authority to impose costs while granting adjournment and such power may be considered as inherent in the Court for safe administration of justice----The petitioner was accused under Sections 420, 467, 468, 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The first order, imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000 upon the petitioner and closed the right of cross-examination of the accused over PW-1 to PW-5. The second order, reiterated the closure of the right of cross-examination due to non-payment of the imposed fine. The petitioner sought the setting aside of both orders and an opportunity for cross-examination over PW-1 to PW-5. After hearing arguments and examining the record, the court referenced Section 344 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows adjournments under reasonable causes, and interpreted it to include the authority to impose costs for adjournments to ensure the safe administration of justice. Regarding the fine imposed in the first order, the court reduced it from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 5,000, considering the circumstances. For the closure of the right of cross-examination in the second order, the court granted the accused one more opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 to PW-5 themselves or through their counsel on the next hearing date. If they fail to do so, the court will proceed with the cross-examination itself. The court concluded the revision petition with instructions for the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) to convey the order to the learned trial court immediately.

Summary: Background: The Ehtesab Bureau of Azad Jammu and Kashmir filed a reference against the respondent for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 of the APC, and Section 11 of the Ehtesab Bureau Ordinance/Act. The Ehtesab Court in Mirpur dismissed the reference on December 26, 2019, citing issues of limitation and the absence of mandatory approval from the Chairman of the Ehtesab Bureau. The petitioner appealed the decision to the High Court, which dismissed the appeal on August 31, 2020. The petitioner then filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal (PLA) before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. ----Issues: 1- Whether the dismissal of the reference by the Ehtesab Court on procedural grounds, such as limitation and lack of mandatory approval, was justified. 2- Whether the appeal to the High Court was correctly dismissed. 3- Whether the Petition for Leave to Appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court acknowledged the petitioner's argument that the dismissal of the reference on procedural grounds should not overshadow the merits of the case. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel argued the judgments of the lower courts were based on procedural and technical grounds that did not address the substantive evidence presented. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the important legal questions raised by the petitioner, which are of public importance and require resolution in a regular appeal. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit a security amount of Rs.1000/- within one month, with failure to do so resulting in the rescission of the leave-granted order. The Court stated that the issue of limitation would be addressed during the final arguments.

Summary: Background:Manzoor Ahmed Akhtar, a Secondary School Teacher, faced criminal charges resulting in his conviction, leading to the loss of his job. Following his release, he presented a fake decision of the High Court of Balochistan, claiming acquittal, which facilitated his reinstatement in the department. An inquiry by the Anti-Corruption Department ensued, implicating him and a co-accused, Nazeer, an office Superintendent. While Nazeer was acquitted due to insufficient evidence, Manzoor Ahmed Akhtar was convicted on multiple charges.---Issues:Whether the High Court's decision to modify the judgment and maintain the guilty verdict against the petitioner was justified.Whether the acquittal of the co-accused affected the prosecution's case against the petitioner.Whether the petitioner's disclaimer of the fake judgment was credible.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court found that the petitioner's conviction on criminal charges was established. His manipulation of a fake judgment to secure his job and subsequent benefits was deemed treacherous. The acquittal of the co-accused did not undermine the charges against the petitioner. The court upheld the conviction and sentencing, finding no grounds for exception. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and leave was declined.---Citations/Precedents:Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860Section 5(2)47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act

Summary: Background: The petitioner, served as Assistant Education Officer in the Education Department and was arrested on 19.05.2010 on charges including forgery and corruption under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and the Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001. He was granted bail on 15.06.2010 by the Ehtesab Court No.1, Muzaffarabad. After his release, he sought readjustment in his job, presenting a judgment allegedly acquitting him, which was later found to be bogus. A reference was then filed against him for forgery and corruption. The petitioner sought dismissal of this reference under section 265-K, Cr.P.C., but his application was rejected by the Ehtesab Court and the High Court. However, this Court quashed the reference on procedural grounds, specifically that it was not filed by the competent authority. Despite this, the Ehtesab Bureau issued new notices to the petitioner on 07.04.2019 and 19.04.2019, prompting him to file a writ petition for quashing these letters, which was dismissed by the High Court, leading to this petition for leave to appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Ehtesab Bureau's new notices to the petitioner violate the previous judgment of this Court. 2- Whether the Ehtesab Bureau has the authority to re-investigate the matter after the previous reference was quashed on procedural grounds. 3- Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition without considering the specific legal points raised by the petitioner. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir granted leave to appeal, recognizing that important legal propositions of public importance were involved. The Court acknowledged that the arguments of the petitioner's counsel were partially supported by the record and that further examination of these issues was warranted. Specifically, the Court will examine: The validity of the Ehtesab Bureau's actions in issuing new notices in light of the previous judgment. The procedural and substantive authority of the Ehtesab Bureau to re-initiate proceedings against the petitioner. The High Court's handling of the writ petition and whether it appropriately addressed the legal arguments presented. ----Citations/Precedents: Sections 109, 409, 471, 419, 420, 467, and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) Section 11 of the Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001 Section 265-K, Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) The Court's decision to grant leave to appeal emphasizes the need for a thorough review of the legal and procedural aspects of the case to ensure justice and adherence to legal standards.

Summary: Bail granted-----Background: This case involved a criminal revision petition filed by two officials of the Mirpur Development Authority (MDA) who were accused of various offences, including fraud, forgery, and bribery, under the Pakistan Penal Code (sections 34, 161, 162, 467, and 468) and the Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001 (sections 10 and 11). The appellants were arrested following a complaint and denied bail by both the Ehtesab Court and the High Court. They then appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking bail. -----Issues: 1- Did the High Court err in denying the appellants bail, given the lack of evidence against them? -----2- Does the principle of consistency entitle the appellants to the same bail relief as the co-accused? -----3- Should the appellants be kept in custody despite weak evidence and bailable offences? -----Holding / Reasoning / Outcome: The Supreme Court accepted the appeal, granting bail to the appellants, with detailed reasoning: --Lack of Evidence: The Court found that the prosecution had not collected any concrete evidence against the appellants. The only evidence—a compact disc (CD)—was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which could not verify it due to a lack of necessary equipment. --Principle of Consistency: The co-accused, facing similar allegations, had already been granted bail. The Court ruled that the principle of consistency applied, entitling the appellants to the same relief. --Malafide Intent and Weak Investigation: The investigation by the Ehtesab Bureau appeared flawed and intended to harass the appellants. No witnesses came forward to support the allegations, and the Bureau failed to gather any substantial evidence. --Rule of Bail: The Court emphasized that bail is the rule and denial is the exception, especially when the offences are bailable and there is no solid evidence. It also noted that detaining the appellants for an indefinite period amounted to conviction without trial, which is against legal principles. --Application of the Ehtesab Bureau Act: The applicability of sections 10 and 11 of the Act would be determined during trial, and in the absence of strong evidence, the appellants could not be kept in custody indefinitely. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and granted bail to the appellants. The appellants were ordered to furnish personal bonds of one million rupees and two sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of a judicial magistrate. -----Citations / Precedents: Muhammad Ajmal v. Muhammad Naeem and 3 others (2001 SCR 164) Held that similarly placed co-accused must be treated consistently in bail matters. Akhtar Hussain & another vs. The State & another (2010 SCR 455) Established that where the allegations are similar and other co-accused have been granted bail, the remaining accused are entitled to the same treatment.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S.22-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419, 420, 467, 468 & 471---Arbitration Act (X of1940), Ss. 30 & 33---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Cheating and forgery---Justice of peace---FIR, registration of---Scope---Contention of the petitioner was that respondents by preparing a forged arbitration agreementhad committed an offence under Ss. 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471, P.P.C.---Application forregistration of FIR was dismissed by the Justice of Peace/Sessions Judge---Validity---Civildispute between the parties with regard to partition of Shamilat property was on record---Petitioner had turned a civil dispute into criminal proceedings just to continue his possessionover a piece of land---If a property dispute in arbitration agreement or award on any ground hadbeen raised then a specific remedy under Ss. 30 & 33 of Arbitration Act, 1940 was available tothe petitioner---Dispute with regard to property had been referred to the arbitrators---None of thepersons except petitioner after 13 years of execution, initiated proceedings for the registration ofFIR against respondents---Averments made by the petitioner had not been supported by otherexecutant of such arbitration agreement/award---Petitioner had an alternate and efficacious remedy to seek grievance before the competent court of law---Constitutional petition was notmaintainable which was dismissed, in circumstances.PLD 2007 SC 539 and 2003 YLR 1941 ref.