Muhammad Nouman vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 567 ISLAMABAD

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

Muhammad Nouman VS State Ss. 200, 202, 204, 435 & 439---Private complaint---Issuance of process against accused---Summoning of accused by Trial Court to face trial---Power of High Court---Revisional jurisdiction---Scope---Respondent No. 2 lodged a private complaint under S.200, Cr.P.C., alleging that he was apprehended by officials of the FIA---Respondent claimed ownership of approximately 200 Bitcoins and alleged that during the raid FIA officials misappropriated his digital currency, seized property and documents without recovery memo, accessed his email and blockchain accounts and transferred crypto currency from his hard wallet---Allegations of custodial torture and misuse of his online credentials were also levelled---Trial Court summoned the petitioners to face the trial---Validity---In the present case, after a full inquiry under S.202, Cr.P.C., the Inquiry Judge recorded the statements of two supporting witnesses, examined complainant and documentary as well as digital evidence, including blockchain records, and concluded that the allegations against the accused persons, including the present petitioner, were prima facie well-founded---From the material placed before it, the Trial Court appeared to have followed the legal steps required by Ss.200 & 202, Cr.P.C., before issuing summons---Order showed that an inquiry was first held, evidence was recorded, and only thereafter process was issued---Said facts demonstrated compliance with the statutory safeguards meant to prevent arbitrary or mechanical summoning of an accused---Revisional jurisdiction under Ss.435 & 439, Cr.P.C., was supervisory rather than appellate; it was exercised only to correct jurisdictional errors, illegalities or material irregularities and not to reassess the sufficiency of evidence already examined by the Trial Court at the preliminary stage---Objections raised by the petitioner, such as delay in filing the private complaint, alleged contradictions between earlier statements and the complaint, or accusations of mala fide intent, were essentially factual matters---Such issues must be evaluated during the trial on the basis of evidence and cross-examination---Such considerations, by themselves, did not undermine the limited finding of prima facie sufficiency under S.202, Cr.P.C. and therefore did not provide grounds for interference at the revisional stage---For these reasons, the impugned order passed by Trial Court admitting the private complaint and summoning the petitioner, disclosed no jurisdictional error, legal infirmity or perversity---Criminal revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Nouman vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 567 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR