Syed MUHAMMAD AHMED vs THE STATE and others
This criminal appeal arose from a High Court order directing that certain accused persons in an FIR not be treated as accused or challaned, based solely on an investigating officer's opinion that their involvement was not established. The Supreme Court of Pakistan considered whether a court could restrain the prosecution of an accused based on an investigator's opinion. The Court held that investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is strictly limited to the collection of evidence, whereas the determination of guilt or innocence is an exclusive judicial function that cannot be delegated to police officers. Consequently, the High Court's order was unsustainable. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and directed the concerned police station to proceed in accordance with the law, reiterating that any discharge of an accused or cancellation of an FIR requires judicial oversight by a competent Magistrate.
- Can a court direct that an accused person not be challaned based solely on the opinion of an investigating officer?
- Is the determination of guilt or innocence of an accused person a judicial function that can be delegated to investigating police officers?
- What is the legal scope and definition of an investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused person be discharged or an FIR cancelled without the order of a competent Magistrate?
- Section 4(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 63, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 190, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Rule 24.7, Police Rules 1934
ORDER
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- We are pained to see the impugned order wherein the learned Judge in Chamber had directed that the petitioners before his Lordship who were the accused persons of F.I.R. No,218 of Police Station Khushab would "not be treated as accused and would not be challaned" in the said case only because some S.I./I.O. Had informed the learned High Court that the involvement of the said accused persons in the said case could not be established and further that the said accused persons had not forged any document or offered any kind of inducement to the complainant to secure any pecuniary benefit.
2. A bare perusal of section 4(1) of the Cr.P.C. Should have been sufficient to acquaint us with the fact that the investigation only meant collection of evidence and no more. We need to remind ourselves and keep in mind that the determination of guilt or innocence of the accused person was an obligation cast on the Courts of law which task could never be permitted to be delegated to the Police Officers investigating a case. It was for this reason that the provisions of section 63 of the Cr.P.C. Prohibited discharge of an accused person except under a special order of a Magistrate and likewise the provisions of Rule 24.7 of the Police Rules of 1934 prohibited cancellation of F.I.Rs, without the orders of a Magistrate.
3. The provisions of section 173,Cr.P.C. Provide only that after the available material had been collected by the S.H.O. During the course of an investigation then the result of the same had to be reported to the Magistrate competent to take cognizance under section 190, Cr.P.C. And thereafter it was for the competent Magistrate/Court to decide whether an accused person did or did not deserve to be tried.
4. In this view of the matter, we find that the impugned order passed by the learned High Court only on alleged opinion of an I.O. Could not be sustained. This petition is, consequently, converted into an appeal which is allowed as a result whereof the said impugned order is set aside and the S.H.O.
Of the concerned Police Station is now directed to feel free to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
Cited by 8 cases
- Jamsher Ali and 3 others vs The State and 2 others 2022 YLR 2345
- Muhammad Idress vs The State, etc 2021 PLJ SC (Cr.C. ) 216, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 433, 2021 SCMR 612, 2021 SCP 98
- BAHAWAL KHAN and 2 others vs The STATE and 4 others 2019 MLD 1114
- ABDUL HAKEEM vs SHABAN and 9 others 2017 YLR 1488
- Sofi MUREED HUSSAIN ALFUQRAH and another vs The STATE and another 2016 PLD Sindh 300
- MEHMOODULHASSAN GILLANI vs MAGISTRATE 1ST CLASS, KHUSHAB and 3 2008 PLD Lahore 171
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs BASARA and 6 others 2007 YLR 2808
- Malik TANVEER AHMAD BHUTTA Versus State 2007 YLR 2811