Jam Kaloi vs State Ss — 2026 PCrLJ 715 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

Jam Kaloi VS State Ss. 22-a, 22-B, 154, 161 & 173---One-occurrence-one-FIR, principle of---Powers of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace---application for the registration of second FIR declined by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace---Legality---Complainant-applicant alleged that accused persons committed murder of his brother but local police was not inclined to lodge the FIR against nominated accused due to political pressure---applicant approached the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace seeking appropriate directions---During pendency of proceedings, FIR was registered by SHO under S.302, P.P.C against unknown persons---applicant sought directions for registration of FIR against the nominated accused persons---However, the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace dismissed the application, holding that once FIR had already been registered regarding the incident, a second FIR could not be lodged and that the applicant's version could be incorporated during investigation---Validity---Perusal of the record revealed that the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace duly observed that FIR had already been lodged by SHO/Inspector on behalf of the State under S.302, P.P.C., against unknown persons, in respect of the incident in question---On the settled principle of one-occurrence-one-FIR, no direction could be issued for a second FIR---However, it was observed that the applicant was not remediless, his version could be placed before the Investigating Officer to be incorporated under S.161 Cr.P.C., and duly reflected in the police report under S.173 Cr.P.C.---all versions, whether advanced by the accused, the complainant, or any other person, must be duly incorporated by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation---Investigating Officer was under a statutory obligation to record all statements under S.161, Cr.P.C., and to collect all relevant material with a view to discovering the truth---Rule 25.2(3) of the Police Rules, 1934, likewise emphasized that the purpose of investigation was not to support a preconceived version of events, but to ascertain the actual facts of the case with complete impartiality---Criminal law does not permit multiplicity of FIRs in respect of the same incident---allowing registration of multiple FIRs would not only open the door for abuse of process and harassment of the accused but would also create practical complications for investigation and trial---Two parallel investigations on the same incident, possibly reaching divergent conclusions, would severely compromise the fairness and credibility of the justice system---In the present case, FIR already covered the occurrence---applicant's grievance was essentially that his perspective had not been fairly reflected---Ex-Officio Justice of Peace rightly declined to direct registration of a second FIR, but correctly safeguarded the applicant's rights by allowing him to approach the Investigating Officer for incorporation of his version---Such approach ensured that the applicant was not deprived of justice, while at the same time protecting the integrity of criminal procedure from the mischief of multiple FIRs---Interference in revision was justified only where an order suffered from illegality, material irregularity, or perversity---Impugned order was consistent with binding precedent and contained a balanced approach that respects both statutory command and individual rights---Therefore,no interference warranted---Criminal revision application was dismissed, accordingly.

Jam Kaloi vs State Ss — 2026 PCrLJ 715 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ