PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

Mst. Sahib Khatoon vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Home Department, Sindh, Karachi Ss — 2025 YLR 2385 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Citation
2025 YLR 2385 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Court
Sindh High Court
Year
2025
Reporter
YLR
Parties
Mst. Sahib Khatoon vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Home Department, Sindh, Karachi Ss
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 173; S. 190; Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

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

Judgment text as reported

Mst. Sahib Khatoon VS Province of Sindh through Secretary Home Department, Sindh, Karachi Ss. 154 & 561-a---Constitution of Pakistan, art. 199---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 353 & 324---Quashing of FIR---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Petitioner/ accused sought quashing of FIR by invoking constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---allegation against the petitioner/accused was that he made an assault on police---Undoubtedly, under the Constitutional jurisdiction conferred under art.199 of the Constitution, a High Court could quash FIR but such power cannot be unstintingly and frequently exercised in the constitutional or inherent jurisdictions by the High Court to quash FIR and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases---Mere statement of petitioner or assertion alone that a false case or FIR was registered against him was insufficient to establish constitutional jurisdiction and to adjudicate the lis under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Judicial propriety did not permit to quash the FIR of cases which were not squarely falling within defined parameters of the rules and which involved disputed facts or controversial facts required a full probe, inquiry or investigation and such procedure culminated in the shape of police report under S.173, Cr.P.C.---Involvement of disputed facts or factual controversies could not be adjudicated in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction under art.199 of the Constitution---Other contraceptive barrier for the petitioner to establish the constitutional jurisdiction was an alternative remedy---Constitutional jurisdiction could only be invoked if the petitioner had no other efficacious and effective remedy available under the statutory provisions---Operative statutes and sub-ordinate legislation provided alternative avenues for the reliefs that had been urged before the Court---Under the scheme of criminal jurisprudence in every criminal case, a criminal investigation terminated into a police report or charge sheet or reference or confidential final report or challan, which solely depended upon formation of independent views by a Judicial Magistrate as required under S.190(3), Cr.P.C., or by an anti-Terrorism Court while accepting or rejecting challan on evaluation of investigation report and material collected---Comparatively, the alternate remedy could conveniently accomplish the purpose of petitioner and was equally effective and efficacious---In such situation it again effectively barred the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---In the presence of adequate remedy which is more efficacious, speedy and effective, present petition was not entertainable---Petitioner had failed to point out any of the ingredients for the quasing of FIR---Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English