MURAD AND Others vs THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE, PAKPATTAN AND Another
This is a leave to appeal petition directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which declined to prohibit further police investigation in a criminal case registered under sections 452, 366, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned the propriety of police conducting further investigation after the accused had initially been discharged following a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petition was misconceived as no formal order by a Magistrate or superior police authority directing further investigation had been placed on the record. The Court established the principle that in the absence of any concrete official order directing further investigation, a challenge against potential police investigation is premature and not maintainable.
- Can a petition be maintained to prohibit police investigation when no formal order directing further investigation has been passed or placed on record?
- Whether the police can conduct further investigation in a criminal case after the accused persons have initially been discharged upon a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 366, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD GUL, J.-This leave petition is from an order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court rejecting a prayer for the quashment of proceedings in a case under section 452/366/148/149, Pakistan Penal Code, stated to be pending against the petitioners in the Court of Resident Magistrate, Pakpattan, District Sahiwal.
2. The facts briefly are these: On 10-10-72 on a report made by one Amir son of Pehalwan a case under section 452/366/148/: 149, Pakistan Penal Code, was registered against the petitioners for the forcible abduction of Mst. Bashiran (a sister of petitioner No. 6) claiming her to be his wife. In the course of investigation, the petitioners were arrested and Mst. Bashiran was also recovered. The latter was produced before a Magistrate who recorded her statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. In which she repudiated the allegations as to her forcible abduction. Later, on a report by the police, the petitioners were discharged.
3. On 2-12-72 Amir moved a habeas corpus petition (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 711-H of 1972) for the recovery of Mst. Bashiran from the alleged illegal detention of the petitioners. The petition was however withdrawn.
4. It appears that Amir has moved the local Police again for further investigation of the case and the petitioners were re-arrested. On a habeas corpus petition (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 100/H of 1973) they were set at liberty by the High Court. The further prayer for an order prohibiting the Police to further investigate the case was however refused by the learned Single Judge with the observation that the police will proceed with the further investigation of the case only "if the law permits them". Feeling aggrieved by this part of the order, the petitioner has moved leave petition.
5. We have no doubt that the petition is wholly misconceived. No order by a Magistrate or by a superior police authority has been placed on the record directing further investigation of the case.
6. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD AZAM vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND OTHERS 1984 PLD Supreme Court 95