Mst. SHAMIM BIBI vs JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, POLICE STATION SAHOOKA and 8
This constitutional petition challenges the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate cancelling an F.I.R. registered under sections 452, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-L(ii), 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while disagreeing with the cancellation report of the S.H.O. The core legal question revolves around whether a Magistrate can validly cancel an F.I.R. based on a cancellation report while concealing the fact that the investigation had been validly transferred to Range Crime and the subsequent investigating officer had found the respondents guilty. The Lahore High Court held that since the true facts and subsequent investigation reports were not brought to the knowledge of the Magistrate, the impugned cancellation order was passed without examining the proper record. The Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the S.H.O. to submit a fresh comprehensive report detailing all investigations for the Illaqa Magistrate to decide the matter on merits.
- Can a Magistrate cancel an F.I.R. without considering the subsequent investigation report and true facts of the case?
- What is the legal effect of concealing a valid transfer of investigation from the Illaqa Magistrate?
- Must the Illaqa Magistrate consider all investigations carried out by different investigating officers before passing an order on a cancellation report?
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 21-6- 2006 passed by the Magistrate Burewala thiough which he while disagreeing with the cancellation report submitted by the S.H.O. Concerned had cancelled F. I. R. No, 207 dated 7-7-2005 registered under sections 452/337-A(i)/F-(i)/L(ii)/148/ 149/109 P.P.C. At Police Station Sahoka.
2. On the perusal of the record, it transpires that on the application of the petitioner, the investigation was transferred to Range Crime on 23-2-2006 and all the concerned failed to bring this fact into the notice of Magistrate who without examining the record agreed with the cancellation report. Although during subsequent investigation, the respondents were held guilty by the I.O.
3. As the investigation of the case ha validly been changed by the competen authority and the Investigating Officer ha( formed his independent opinion but b: concealing the facts, the police officer go the case cancelled by the Illaqa Magistrate Admittedly true facts were not in the knowledge of the Illaqa Magistrate an in this way he had passed the impugned order.
4. In view of the above, impugned orders dated 21-6-2006 and 14-9-2006 are hereby set aside with the direction to the S.H.O., P.S. Sahoka to submit a report before the Illaqa Magistrate containing all the details of the case as well as all the investigations carried out by different Investigating Officers.
On receipt of the same, the Illaqa Magistrate shall pass an appropriate order on it after considering the contentions raised by both the parties i.e, the complainant as well as the accused, on merits strictly in accordance with law without having been influenced by the earlier orders of cancellation of the case which were passed without considering the record properly.
Cited by 2 cases
- Shehzadan Mayi vs Area Magistrate, etc 2021 LHC 1262
- SHEHZADAN MAYI Versus AREA MAGISTRATE 2021 PCrLJ 1563