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

Muhammad Muhsin vs Director, Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), Quetta Ss — 2026 PCrLJ 790 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Citation
2026 PCrLJ 790 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Court
Balochistan High Court
Year
2026
Reporter
PCRLJ
Parties
Muhammad Muhsin vs Director, Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), Quetta Ss
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 26---; S. 160; S. 403; S. 26; General Clauses Act (X of 1897); General Clauses Act

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

Muhammad Muhsin VS Director, Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), Quetta Ss. 160 & 403--- General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 26--- Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 9, 13 & 14--- Constitutional petition--- Notice, quashing of--- Double jeopardy, principle of--- Applicability--- Petitioner was aggrieved of notice under S.160, Cr.P.C., issued by authorities to join inquiry proceedings in the matter which had already been decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction---Validity---Notice issued under S.160, Cr.P.C. without disclosing any precise allegation or supporting documentation, only underscores arbitrary and flawed nature of proceedings---Law requires an investigation agency to act on the basis of some credible information or material--- Mere suspicion or reference in ageneral report cannot be a substitute for legally admissible and probative evidence---In absence of such material, continuation of inquiry served no purpose other than to cause mental anguish, reputational injury and financial hardship to petitioner--- Repeated and unjustified initiation of proceedings against petitioner, particularly in absence of new material, not only infringed upon his fundamental right to fair treatment under the law but also violated fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 4, 9 & 14 of the Constitution--- Petitioner had already been tried and acquitted on the same set of facts and any subsequent prosecution on identical grounds was barred by Constitutional safeguard under doctrine of double jeopardy--- Initiation of fresh proceedings in absence of any new material evidence had violated the Constitutional fundamental rights guaranteed under Art.13 (a) of the Constitution read with S.403, Cr.P.C. and S.26 of General Clauses Act, 1897--- High Court declared inquiry in question as without lawful authority based on a defective inquiry / investigation and of no legal effect--- High Court quashed notice under S.160, Cr.P.C. issued to petitioner by authorities--- Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ

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