Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1601 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case NaveeN Jatoi vs Province of Sindh S

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 1601 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case NaveeN Jatoi VS Province of Sindh S.154---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Quashing of FIRs---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Petitioner not named in the FIRs for which quashment sought ---Petitioner in instant case was the wife of accused against whom the FIRs, sought to be quashed, had been registered---From bare perusal of impugned FIRs, it seemed to be an admitted position that the petitioner had not been named and/or nominated in those FIRs, nor during investigation conducted after registration of said FIRs, she had been involved in any manner in those cases---Petitioner was not an aggrieved person to seek quashing of the FIRs---Admitted position was that investigation in the impugned FIRs had already been completed and charge sheet/challan under S.173, Cr.P.C., had been submitted before the concerned Court and cognizance had been taken by the Trial Court---In such circumstances, it did not seem to be proper to quash the FIRs, rather it was for the Trial Court to determine the fate of the case---Noteworthy that prayers seeking injunction/restraint orders with regard to criminal proceedings were hit by the provisions of S.56(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, which laid down that an injunction could not be granted to stay proceedings in any criminal matter---Such conduct of petitioner was not appreciable and it was appropriate that separate petitions should have been filed for quashing of each FIR---Of course, had all the impugned FIRs been the result of one and the same incident, the situation would have been different but, in instant case all three impugned FIRs were lodged in respect of three different incidents, that too lodged in different police stations on different dates and times---On that score too, the petition did not seem to be maintainable---Even otherwise, consequent determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused fell within the domain of the Trial Court and that resort to the provisions of S.561-A, Cr.P.C., or to the provisions of Art. 199 of the Constitution seeking quashing of a criminal case was an extraordinary remedy which could be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances and exceptional cases---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1601 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case NaveeN Jatoi vs Province of Sindh S — 2025 PCrLJ 1601 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ