25/08/2026
Article 199 is not intended to replace the ordinary criminal process. If factual controversies exist the High Court ordinarily will not conduct a mini-trial or weigh competing evidence in constitutional jurisdiction. The judgment specifically mentions remedies including:
* investigation by the police;
* approaching higher police authorities;
* cancellation/discharge mechanisms;
* Section 249-A Cr.P.C.;
* Section 265-K Cr.P.C.;
* bail/further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.;
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD
C.P. No.D-544 of 2025.
08.04.2025.
J U D G M E N T
Syed Fiaz ul Hassan Shah, J: The Counsel for the petitioner has mainly argued that a false case has been registered by the police, therefore, it may be quashed. We have noticed that FIR No.05 of 2025 PS Manjhand District Jamshoro was registered for offence under Section 353, 324 PPC. Since, the FIR has been registered having statutory backing under Section 154 Cr.P.C, For the sake of convenience, the same is reproduced hereunder:
“154. Information in cognizable cases. Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable
offence if given orally to an officer in-charge of a police-
station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his
direction, and be read over to the informant, and every
such information whether given in writing or reduced to
writing as aforesaid shall be signed by the person giving it
and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be
kept by such officer in such form as the provincial
Government may prescribe in this behalf.”
Undoubtedly, the constitutional jurisdiction conferred under
Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,
1973, a High Court can quash an FIR but such power cannot
unstintingly and frequently exercise in the Constitutional or inherent
jurisdictions by this Court to quash an FIR and it can exercise sparingly
in exceptional cases within parameters settled by the Supreme Court
of Pakistan. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case “Ajmeel
Khan v. Abdul Rahim and others” (PLD 2009 SC 102) held:
“6. Needless to emphasis, that functions of the judiciary
and the police are complementary not overlapping and the
combination of individual liberty with a due observance of
law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to
exercise its own function. If a criminal liability is spelt out
from facts and circumstances of a particular case, accused
can be tried upon a criminal charge. Quashment of FIR
during investigation tantamount to throttling the
investigation which is not permissible in law. However, FIR
can be quashed by High Court in its writ jurisdiction when
its registration appears to be misuse of process of law or
without any legal justification. The police are under a
statutory duty under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and have a statutory right under Section 156 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure to investigate a
cognizable offence whenever a report is made to it
disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence. To
quash the police investigation on the ground that the case
is false would be to act on treacherous grounds and would
tantamount to an uncalled for interference by the Court
with the duties of the police.”
[Emphasis added]
In another case “Gulam Mustufa v. State” (2008 SCMR 76) the
Supreme Court held that:
"High Court has no jurisdiction whatsoever to take the role
of the investigating agency and to quash the FIR, while
exercising constitutional power under Article 199 of the
Constitution or under section 561-A Cr. P.C. unless and
until very exceptional circumstances existed."
These exceptional grounds have been rendered down by the
apex Court, for instance in case “FIA, Director General FIA and
others v. Syed Hamid Ali Shah and others” (PLD 2023 SC 265), the
Supreme Court of Pakistan highlighted that High Court can quash FIR
under its writ jurisdiction when FIR is patently illegal or contrary to law
or it did not constitute a cognizable offence. Although, there is no
restriction has put on the High Court to invoke the provision of writ
jurisdiction for quashment of FIR, however, the said obstruction or
rampart thrown up across a way or relief to check the balance and
importance of provision of section 154 Cr.P.C and recognized
principles that no disputed facts can be resolved in the constitutional
jurisdiction and it must proceed within the operative statutes. Notably,
the intent of legislatures is clearly understandable as various provisions
are available under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 with the
Investigation Officers or Prosecutor or even Judicial Magistrate of area
while supervising investigation or even during the trial by the Court of
Judicial Magistrate or Court of Sessions under the provisions of
Sections 63, 249-A or 265-K and in the presence of such alternate
remedies, the quashment of FIR in writ jurisdiction for the grievance
which can conveniently be attributed under the statutory provision,
cannot be invoked or this Court does not appreciate as per the settled
legal principles of power and scope under the Constitutional
jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has highlighted the
fundamental points; “exceptional circumstances” and “alternate
remedy” or “disputed facts”, where a High Court ought not to not
interfere with the FIR and prefer to proceed the investigation or trial to
its logical way, in a landmark case “Col. Shah Sadiq versus
Muhammad Ashiq and others” (2006 S C M R 276)
“7. It is also a settled proposition of law that if prima facie
an offence has been committed, ordinary course of trial
before the Court should not be allowed to be deflected by
resorting to constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. By
accepting the constitutional petition, the High Court erred
in law to short circuit the normal procedure of law as
provided under Cr.P.C. and police rules while exercising
equitable jurisdiction which is not in consonance with the
law laid down by this Court in A. Habib Ahmad v. M.K.G.
Scott Christian PLD 1992 SC 353. The learned High Court
had quashed the F.I.R. in such a manner as if the
respondent had filed an appeal before the High Court
against order passed by trial Court. The learned High
Court had no jurisdiction to quash the impugned F.I.R. by
appreciation of the documents produced by the parties
without providing chance to cross-examine or confronting
the documents in question. Respondents had alternative
'remedy to raise objection at the time of framing the
charge against them by the trial Court or at the time of final
disposal of the trial after recording the evidence. Even
otherwise, respondents have more than one alternative
remedies before the trial Court under the Cr.P.C. i.e.
section 265-K, 249-A or to approach the concerned
Magistrate for cancellation of the case under provisions of
Cr.P.C. The respondents have following alternative
remedies under Cr.P.C.:-
(a) To appear before the Investigating Officer to prove
their innocence.
(b) To approach the competent higher authorities of the
Investigating Officer having powers vide section 551 of
Cr.P.C.
(c) After completion of the investigation, the Investigating
Officer has to submit case to the concerned Magistrate
and the Magistrate concerned has power to discharge
them under section 63 of the Cr.P.C. in case of their
innocence.
(d) In case he finds the respondents innocent, he would
refuse to take cognizance of the matter.
(e) Rule 24.7 of the Police Rules of 1934 makes a
provision for cancellation of cases during the course of
investigation under the orders of the concerned
Magistrate.
(f) There are then remedies which are available to
accused persons who claim to be innocent and who can
seek relief without going through the entire length of
investigations.
8. The learned High Court erred in law in accepting
constitutional petition by quashing the F.I.R. at the initial
stage which was not in consonance with the law laid down
by this Court in the following judgments:-
(i) Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan and 3 others
PLD 1967 SC 317; (ii) Mohsin Ali and another v. The State
1992 SCMR 229; (iii) Abdul Rehman v. Muhammad Hayat
Khan and others 1980 SCMR 311; (iv) Marghoob Alam
and another v. Shamas Din and another 1986 SCMR 303;
(v) Sheikh Muhammad Yameen v. The State 1973 SCMR
622; (vi) Bashir Ahmad v. Zafar-ul-Islaam and others PLD
2004 SC 298; (vii) Kh. Nazir Ahmad's case AIR 1945 PC
p.18; (viii) Shahnaz Begum v. The Honourable Judges of
the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan and another PLD
1971 SC 677; (ix) Brig. (Retd.) Imtiaz Ahmad v.
Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Interior
Division, Islamabad and 2 others 1994 SCMR 2142.
9. According to provisions of Cr.P.C. it is for the
Investigating Officer to collect all the facts connected with
the commission of offence and if he finds that no offence is
committed, he may submit a report under section 173,
Cr.P.C. to the Allaqa Magistrate. On the other hand, if on
the basis of his investigation he is of the opinion that the
offence has in fact been committed, he has to submit
report accordingly. However, the report of the Investigating
Officer cannot be the evidence in the case. The
investigation is held with a view to ascertaining whether or
not an offence has been committed. The inquiry, or trial,
as the case may be has to be conducted by the
Magistrate. If the police is restrained from investigating the
matter, their statutory duty, it will in our opinion be
tantamount to acting against the law as held in Kh. Nazir
Ahmad's case AIR 1945 PC. p.18. The relevant
observation is as follows:
"Just as it is essential that everyone accused of a crime
should have free access to a Court of justice so that he
may be duly acquitted if found not guilty of the offence with
which he is charged, so it is of the utmost importance that
the judiciary should not interfere with the police in the
matters which are within their province and into which the
law imposes upon them the duty of enquiry. In India as
W.P No. 1976-Q of 2022 7 has been shown there is a
statutory right on the part of the police under sections 154
and 156 to investigate the circumstances of an alleged
cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the
judicial authorities, and it would as their Lordships think,
be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to
interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the
inherent jurisdiction of the Court under section 561-A. The
functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary not overlapping and the combination the
police are complementary not overlapping and the
combination of individual liberty with a due observance of
law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to
exercise its own function, always of course, subject to the
right of the Court to intervene in an appropriate case when
moved under section 491, Criminal Procedure Code, to
give direction in the nature of habeas corpus. In such a
case as the present, however, the Court's functions begin
when a charge is preferred before it and not until then."
The mere statement of petitioner or assertion alone that a false case or
FIR is registered against him is insufficient to establish constitutional
jurisdiction and to adjudicate the lis under the Constitutional jurisdiction
of this Court. The judicial propriety does not permit to quash the FIR of
cases which are not squarely fall within defined parameters of the rules
laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan and which involve
disputed facts or controversial facts requires a full probe, inquiry or
investigation and such procedure culminated in the shape of police
report under section 173 Cr.P.C. The involvement of disputed facts or
factual controversies cannot be adjudicated in exercise of its
constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 as held by this court in the
cases of “Mst. Tayyeba Ambareen and another v. Shafqat Ali
Kiyani and another (2023 SCMR 246), “Amir Jamal and others v.
Malik Zahoor-ul-Haq and others” (2011 SCMR 1023) and “Fida
Hussain v. Mst Saiqa and others” (2011 SCMR 1990), “State Life
Insurance Corporation of Pakistan v. Pakistan To***co Co. Ltd.”
(PLD 1983 SC 280).
The other contraceptive barrier for the petitioner to establish the
constitutional jurisdiction is alternative remedy. The constitutional
jurisdiction can only be invoked if the petitioner has no other efficacious
and effective remedy available under the statutory provisions. The
operative statutes and sub-ordinated legislation provide alternative
avenues for the reliefs what have urged before us. Under the scheme
of criminal jurisprudence in every criminal case, a criminal investigation
terminated into a police report1 or charge sheet2 or reference3 or
confidential final report4 or challan solely depends upon formation of
independent views by a Judicial Magistrate as required under section
190(3) Cr.P.C. or by a Anti-Terrorism Court while accepting or rejecting
challan on evaluation of investigation report and material together
collected thereto. Comparatively, the alternate remedy can
1 As in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898
2 As in the Police Rules, 1934
3 As in the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999
4 As in the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 or the Anti-Corruption Act, 1991
or its Rules of 1993
conveniently accomplish the purpose of petitioner and is equally
effective and efficacious and in this situation it again effectively bars
the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Reliance can be placed on
cases entitled a “Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd v. Collector of
Customs Appraisement”, (1990 MLD 126), “Pak. Metal Industries
v. Assistant Collector”, (1990 CLC 1022), “Allah Wasaya v.
Tehsildar/AC 1st Grade”, (1981 CLC 1202), “Syed Riaz Hussain
Zaidi v. Muhammad Iqbal”, (PLD 1981 Lah. 215) & “Abdul Hafeez
v. Chairman, Municipal Corporation” (PLD 1967 Lah. 1251).
The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is envisioned
predominantly for affording an express remedy where the unlawfulness
and impropriety of the action of an executive or police or Investigation
Officer could be substantiated with the very action when it is patently
illegal, unlawful or ultra vires or done or performed in colorable
exercise of jurisdiction vested in such authority or officer or propriety
demands or permit that it is without any convoluted inquiry or in other
words when it does not involve disputed or controversial facts which
may without any question assuredly avoid necessitation of adoption of
normal course of trial or adjudication by a Court of law. The expression
“adequate remedy” signifies an effectual, accessible, advantageous
and expeditious remedy which obviously must have statutory
adherence with or requirement of such statutory mandate which is
generally called as “jurisdiction”. Since the statutes provides more
adequate remedy remedium juris and expressive adequate remedy
and ways are more efficacious, beneficial, convenient, effective,
speedy and appropriate within criminal jurisdiction of the inferior courts,
for instance the trial Court would have to reach at certain conclusion
after recording of evidence, testimonies of prosecution witnesses
together with record, material or documents, if any, produce by
prosecution side and during the course of trial, the statutes permit the
court to grant bail as per recognized judicial principles or exemption
from personal appearance, or discharge when charge is groundless or
release as a case of further inquiry under section 497(2) Cr.P.C. or
acquit under section 249-A or 265-K of the Cr.P.C., therefore, in the
presence of adequate remedy which is more efficacious, speedy and
effective, the petition is not entertainable. Reference can be placed on
the case “Dr. Sher Afgan Khan Niazi Vs. Ali S. Habib & others”
(2011 SCMR 1813). To sum up the discussion, the petitioner has failed
to point out any of the ingredients for the quashment that may modify
this Court to quash the FIR. Therefore, the constitution petition stands
dismissed in limine. We are very well aware that in the cases of alleged policeencounter and ineffective firing, the Honorable Supreme Court of
Pakistan while hearing case of “Zeeshan Shani v. The State” (2012
SCMR 428) has ruled that standard of proof should be far higher in the case of police encounter and ineffective firing as compared to any other criminal case as well as the same police cannot be allowed to investigate the offences with obvious reason of impartiality. The Relevant para is re-produced hereunder:
“11. The standard of proof in this case should have
been far higher as compared to any other criminal case when according to the prosecution it was a case of police encounter. It was, thus, desirable and even imperative that it should have been investigated by some other agency. Police, in this case, could not have been investigators of their own cause. Such investigation which is woefully lacking independent character cannot be made basis for conviction in a charge involving capital sentence, that too when it is riddled with many lacunas and loopholes listed above, quite apart from the after thoughts and improvements. It would not be in accord of safe administration of justice to maintain the conviction and sentence of the appellant in the circumstances of the case.” Keeping into consideration the doctrine of “conflict of interest” and dictum, the Inspector General of Police being Head of Police has already framed a policy that the cases of police encounter with ineffective firing are to be investigated by the police of other district and police officers of same District when an alleged incident is taken place are barred to investigate the alleged offence(s). While dismissing the above-said petition, we direct the Deputy Inspector General of Police to depute the investigation constituting a JIT comprising officers other than the District Jamshoro where the instant FIR No.05 of 2025 has been
registered. the Constitution petition is dismissed with above
observations
