AYSHA KHALID vs NAZIR A. CHAUDHRY, INVESTIGATING OFFICER CITY COURT
This matter arises from criminal applications filed by the applicant seeking proper investigation and grievance redressal regarding an alleged offense involving her real uncle and aunt over property disputes, contending that the police wrongly categorized the case and that the Magistrate improperly entertained a police report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerns the respective duties of the police to submit investigation reports and the Magistrate's authority to evaluate and pass appropriate orders on such reports, alongside allegations of corruption against judicial staff. The court held that police officials are duty-bound to submit investigation reports for the Magistrate to decide whether to accept them or issue further directions. The court directed the learned Magistrate to examine the matter, hear the applicant, and pass a reasoned order on the police report within one month, while also directing administrative steps regarding unsubmitted comments from the Magistrate concerning allegations of corruption. The key principle laid down is that upon submission of a police report under Section 173, the Magistrate holds the exclusive domain to independently assess the circumstances, hear the aggrieved party, and determine whether to accept the report or issue alternative directions.
- Whether a Magistrate is empowered to decide upon the acceptance of an investigation report submitted by the police?
- What is the procedure when a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is submitted before a Magistrate?
- Can a High Court direct a Magistrate to pass an order on a pending police report after hearing the aggrieved party?
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. In terms of the order passed in both these applications certain directions were issued. In response thereto Jaffar Baloch, P.I./SIO, on behalf of SSP Investigation, Ch. Nazeer Ahmed, SI, City Court P.S. Saddar, T-II, Zone-I, CCP, Karachi and SIP Ali Gohar Soomro, Preedy alongwith Afsheen Aman, State Counsel. I.O. Ch. Nazeer Ahmed, submits that previously the investigation was with Ali Gohar Soomro and thereafter it has been assigned to him and he has investigated the matter. He submits that the matter was taken up with the D.I.G. and two SSPs Zone-II, while another meeting, participated by DIG Investigation, SSP AVC and SP ACLU and in all these meetings the contention of the applicant has been rejected. He submits that since he has already investigated the matter and submitted a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., wherein he has described the case as falls in 'B' class, therefore, now it is the issue before the learned Magistrate to pass an order on that. They also submit an application alongwith order of Sessions Judge as well as outcome of the meetings. He further submits that once the matter has also taken up before the Sessions Judge, but contention of the applicant was rejected.
2. Even after above situation the applicant submits that her matter has not properly been scrutinized by the police officials as well as by the Magistrate and that her case falls under Section 365-A PPC, while it has been dealt with under Section 365-A and that the Magistrate has wrongly entertained the police report.
3. It is being observed that the officials are duty bound to submit their report after investigation and it will be the Magistrate to decide as to whether under the given circumstances the said report is to be accepted or some other direction to be issued to the police officials. During the course of arguments it has come on record that the applicant 'is leveling allegations against her real uncle and aunt, who according to Ch. Nazeer Ahmed, I.O. are aged persons. The applicant states that since the property is involved, therefore, they are after her. The learned Magistrate is directed to look into the matter and after hearing the applicant to pass an order on the police report which has been submitted and to pass an order within one month. Both the Cr. Tr. as well as Misc.
4. Application stand disposed of.
5. It has further been noted that on the complaint of the applicant that the Magistrate and his officials are demanding money for issuance of the copies, comments were asked by this Court from the Magistrate, but today no comments have been received. In the circumstances, noncompliance of the order of this Court amounts to negligence on the part of the Magistrate, therefore, M.I. T-I, is directed to seek explanation from the Magistrate and if he find that reply is not satisfactory then place it before the Court.