Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1426 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Muhammad Sharif vs State Ss

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1426 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Muhammad Sharif VS State Ss. 504, 506-B, 148, 149, 337-a(i) & 337-F(i)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 173 & 561-a---Inherent jurisdiction of High Court---Quashing of FIR---Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace, criminal intimidation, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah---Complainant was aggrieved of order passed by Judicial Magistrate approving final investigation report under S. 173, Cr.P.C., as "C" Class case---Validity---Investigating Officer had not placed police report as required under S.173, Cr.P.C. and the relevant column of "case property" was blank---Investigation Officer had failed to recover the "case property" (lathi or hatchet) or alternatively failed to give plausible reason for non-recovery---Investigation Officer had deliberately thrown in garbage the Final Medico Legal Certificate issued by the Medical Officer, despite the factum that it had mentioned that the applicant had sustained injury falling under Ss.337-a & 337F(i),P.P.C---Surprisingly, the police report which was the opinion of Investigation Officer about the case had been filed without mentioning penal provisions of law reckoning in the FIR and without reference as to said penal provisions may or may not be established in the opinion of the Investigation Officer in his said police report under "C" Class---Similarly, the Office of the DPP had flagrantly violated the pre-indictment review process and had remotely forwarded the challan without completion of basic ingredients and legal requirements of the case---Investigation Officer had even intentionally not considered that those penal provision of law were enumerated in the relevant column of FIR by the SHO concerned after due consideration on the Medico Legal Certificate and for that reasons the Investigating Officer had not recorded the statement under S.161, Cr.P.C., of the Medical Officer and he failed to unearth the truth so also he had not examined the Duty Officer who had lodged FIR invoking the penal provisions of injuries---Consequently, the final police report of "C" Class prepared by Investigating Officer did not show the Medical Officer or Duty Officer in the calendar of witnesses in violation of the Police Rules---Magistrate was required to apply his mind in order to ascertain as to whether the case was one which he was required to send for trial to the Court of Session or he could proceed to try himself---Section 337-F(1),P.P.C., was triable by Court of Sessions---Investigation Officer had not incorporated the Medico-Legal Certificate and failed to place before the Judicial Magistrate, which was act of bypassing the mandatory requirements of investigation---Consequently, a case could not be treated to be one of insufficient evidence and the conduct of Investigation Officer to disbelieve such evidence without legal justification was an act to assume the role of Court which was not permissible---Simultaneously, it was impermissible for Magistrate to analyze deeper examination of material which ought to be done by the regular Trial Court as embodied by law---Obligatory duty of investigation and prosecution which squarely lied upon the Investigation Officer, Supervisory Officer and Prosecutor General's Office to bring truth and not to conceal or hide record from the Magistrate---Police report must be placed in transparent manner, which had not been done in the instant case---Therefore, the impugned Order dated 21-09-2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate accepting the police report as "C" Class was not sustainable---Impugned order was set aside with directions to pass fresh order after considering material record in accordance with law---Criminal Miscellaneous application stood disposed of accordingly.

Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1426 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Muhammad Sharif vs State Ss — 2025 MLD 1426 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD