Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 126 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Muhammad Saleem 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 PCrLJ 126 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Muhammad Saleem VS State Ss. 561-a & 149---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 506(2), 107, 114, 148 & 149---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Police Order (22 of 2002), art. 155(1)(c)(d)---Quashing of order---Scope---accused/applicant was charged for offence under S.107, P.P.C, as well as under S.149, Cr.P.C, and art. 155-C of Police Order, 2002, by not preventing commission of offence as at least four persons lost their lives during the occurrence---Validity---Record showed that Court had not referred to any material facts leading it to conclude that applicant, the SHO of Police Station, was equally involved in commission of the alleged offence---Court had not cited any provision of law that gave it authority to make some Police Official, who had nothing to do with the crime, as an accused therein, just because the offence got committed in his jurisdiction---Secondly, Court had not pointed out any justification creating even a remote hypothesis of applicant's hand in commission of the alleged offence---Reference to S.107, P.P.C, and conclusion that failure of applicant to stop the crime came within definition of illegal omission was equally misconceived and based on wrong understanding of said provision---S.107, P.P.C, or scheme under S.149, Cr.P.C, would come into play only when the Police Officer, or someone for that matter, had the knowledge of the offence about to be committed or which was being committed in his presence, which he either instigated or engaged with one or more other persons for committing that offence or made a conspiracy for doing it, or indulged in illegal omission by letting it happen without informing the relevant police or the victims with a view to prevent it---Moreover, it would not apply to Incharge Police Station in whose jurisdiction the offence had been committed and about which he only later on came to know---Nothing in the present case was available on record, or had been referred to by the Judge, that might show advance knowledge of the applicant qua commission of the offence or his presence at the spot, or his failure to stop it in order to hold him responsible for illegal omission on his part---No doubt, it was the duty of the Police Officer to maintain law and order situation within a given area, however, it would not mean that if an offence was committed within the jurisdiction of the police station, the SHO would be joined in the case as an accused to stand trial along with actual culprits---Negligence on the part of a Police Officer to take necessary measures for preventing cognizable offences is a different species, and it cannot be equated with the actual offence committed by the accused in his area---If some Police Official is found negligent in performance of his duty, he would be chargeable by a provision different than the offence which is found to have been committed due to his negligence and he would be dealt with by a different procedure---Negligence of applicant would not however make him an accused in the main offence, like the one in hand where allegedly on account of previous enmity four (04) persons had been killed---If the approach adopted in the impugned order was allowed to remain in the field, it would create upheaval in the society, demoralize the police force and would put entire justice system in jeopardy---approach of Court in making SHO of the relevant Police Station as an accused in the main offence was therefore alien to law and based on non-understanding of relevant provisions---Hence, the impugned order being meritless was set aside---application was accordingly allowed.

Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 126 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Muhammad Saleem vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 126 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ