The High Court should Quash FIRs in rare cases where no offense can be established, or there is a blatant misuse of Legal Authority --- Supreme Court of Pakistan
Islamabad 31-10-2024: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of Pakistan overturned a Lahore High Court decision that had quashed an FIR against individuals accused of fraudulently transferring state land. The case, The State through Prosecutor General Punjab Vs. Chaudhry Mohammad Khan et al., dealt with allegations of illegal land transfer through fake documentation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan ruling reinforces the strict standards required for quashing criminal proceedings, emphasizing the need to allow investigations into cognizable offenses to proceed unless there is a clear absence of legal grounds or an abuse of authority.
The dispute arose when an FIR was registered against several individuals, including former revenue officials, for their alleged involvement in the fraudulent transfer of valuable state land in Multan. The High Court had initially quashed the FIR, citing that the matter was a civil dispute lacking criminal implications, and noting the unlikelihood of conviction as well as alleged malafide intent behind the FIR’s registration. However, the Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed each of these points and found the High Court’s intervention to be premature and unwarranted.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan clarified that even if a civil dispute exists, it does not preclude criminal proceedings if a cognizable offense is indicated. The Court cited Seema Fareed Vs. The State (2008 SCMR 839) to support its position that civil and criminal proceedings can coexist, as each has distinct legal objectives.
The ruling reiterated that High Courts should only quash FIRs in rare cases where no offense can be established, or there is a blatant misuse of legal authority. Citing Ajmeel Khan Vs. Abdul Rahim (PLD 2009 SC 102) and FIA Director General Vs. Syed Hamid Ali Shah (PLD 2023 SC 265), the Supreme Court of Pakistan emphasized that quashing an FIR prematurely disrupts the criminal justice process and interferes with the investigative authority of law enforcement.
Reinforcing the roles of the judiciary and police as complementary, the Supreme Court of Pakistan underscored that Courts should not hinder investigations unless it is evident that the FIR lacks any foundation. This principle was supported by reference to Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi (AIR 2021 SC 5041), an Indian Supreme Court of Pakistan case that shares similar principles on investigative autonomy.
Addressing the High Court’s reasoning on the unlikelihood of conviction, the Supreme Court of Pakistan noted that this question should be left to trial Courts, referencing Sections 249-A and 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empower trial Courts to dismiss cases based on evidentiary analysis.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan stressed that while High Courts have constitutional powers under Article 199 to quash FIRs, this authority should not extend to resolving factual controversies a role reserved for trial Courts, as reaffirmed in cases like Mst. Tayyeba Ambareen Vs. Shafqat Ali Kiyani (2023 SCMR 246).
Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the State’s appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and reinstated the FIR. The Court’s decision reaffirms the need for strict adherence to procedural standards in criminal investigations and highlights the limited grounds upon which an FIR may be quashed. Legal analysts view this judgment as a reminder of the judiciary’s cautious approach to intervening in the investigative process, underscoring the importance of due process in criminal proceedings.
The ruling sends a clear message on the boundaries of judicial intervention, emphasizing that FIR quashment should remain an exception, ensuring that law enforcement agencies can investigate and prosecute offenses without premature interference.
Powered by Froala Editor
