Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ---- Ss. 173 & 561-A – Counter FIRs – Investigation must consider both versions – No automatic exclusion of subsequent FIR – Trial Court justified in entertaining both cases Petitioners sought quashment of trial proceedings, arguing that once an FIR (No. 55 of 2003) resulted in a report under S. 173, Cr.P.C., it was unlawful for the prosecution to file another challan based on FIR No. 56 of 2003. Held, where counter cases arise from the same incident, each party presents its own version, blaming the other as the aggressor. Police must investigate both cases independently, and if both disclose cognizable offences, the prosecution must file separate reports under S. 173, Cr.P.C.. A subsequent report does not become redundant merely because an earlier one exists; instead, the Trial Court is required to consider both versions before reaching a conclusion. If, upon investigation, one version is found to be false, proceedings under S. 182, P.P.C. for false reporting can be initiated. The trial of both cases simultaneously is legally justified. ----Cited Cases: PLD 1963 AJ&K 33 (The State v. Muhammad Yaqoob) PLD 1987 SC (AJ&K) 65 (Ibrar Hussain Shah v. The State) (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ---- Ss. 242, 243 & 244 – Framing of charge – Consideration of all prosecution material – Charge-sheet not confined to FIR and police report Petitioners objected that the Trial Court framed charges incorporating facts not found in the FIR or report under S. 173, Cr.P.C., particularly allegations that they were called to the scene by another individual and that the dispute related to a pathway. Held, while an FIR and police report are primary documents, the Trial Court is required under S. 265-D, Cr.P.C., to consider all prosecution evidence, including witness statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C., site plans, and recovery memos when framing charges. Since statements of some witnesses supported the facts included in the charge-sheet, the charge was lawfully framed. Mere incorporation of evidentiary details in a charge does not prejudice the accused, as they still retain the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and present a defense. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ---- Defective charge – Impact on trial – Conviction cannot be sustained on defective framing of charge, but charge alone does not vitiate trial Petitioners relied on PLD 1963 AJ&K 33 and PLD 1987 SC (AJ&K) 65, arguing that the charge was defective as it included facts not directly supported by the FIR. Held, these precedents were not applicable, as the petitioners had not been convicted but merely charged. A charge under S. 242, Cr.P.C., serves to inform the accused of allegations, enabling them to prepare a defense. Any defect in the charge does not vitiate the trial unless it results in wrongful conviction or prejudices the accused’s defense. Since the petitioners had denied the charges, the burden shifted to the prosecution to prove them, and the accused retained full rights to challenge the evidence. ----Disposition: Petition dismissed; trial proceedings to continue.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.