Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2024 PLD 2026
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: Arshad Sharif vs FOP etc.
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2024 PLD 2026. In this matter between Arshad Sharif and FOP etc., the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Islamabad High Court (Honourable Mr. Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani) AUTHOR JUDGE: Honourable Mr. Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani DECISION DATE: 26-AUG-2024 CASE NO: Writ Petition-1812-2022 CITATION: 177 PLD 2025 PARTIES: Arshad Sharif VS FOP etc. LAW / SECTION: under Article 184(3) read with Article 186A and Article 187 of the Constitution.| under Section 185(2), Cr.P.C SUBJECT: Police/FIA Matter, Other REMARKS: Petitioner is a journalist, aggrieved that various FIRs across the country have been lodged against him on same closure. Seeks information of all FIR's and consolidation. ============================================================ JUDGMENT SHEET ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD, JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
W.P No.1812-2022
Arshad Sharif and others Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others.
W.P No1872-2022
Muhammad Imran Riaz Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others
W.P No.2005-2022
Arshad Sharif Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others.
Crl. Misc. No.658-2022
Sami Ibrahim Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others.
Petitioners by: Mr. Muhammad Faisal Malik, Barrister Muhammad Shoaib Razzaq, Mr. Muhammad Omar Farooq, Malik Muhammad Fiaz Kandwal, Advocates in their respective petitions alongwith petitioner Sami Ibrahim.
Respondents by:
Amici Curiae Mr. Usman Rasool Ghumman, AAG. Ms. Saadia Shehzadi, State Counsel. Ms. Sumaira Khurshid, State Counsel. Tahir Kazim, Law Officer IG Office. Muhammad Akbar, S.I, P.S Kohsar, Islamabad.
Ms. Khadija Ali, Advocate, Mr. Muhammad Naseem Zia, District Public Prosecutor. Mr. Kamran Adil, D.I.G Police and Research Centre, Lahore High Court, Lahore. Mr. Nasir Zaidi, Secretary General, PFUJ.
Assisted by: Research Centre, Lahore High Court, Lahore. Ms. Aymen Azeem, Law Clerk, IHC.
Date of Hearing: 27.06.2024.
W.P.No.1812, 1872, 2005 and Crl. Misc. No.658 of 2022 Page | 2
MOHSIN AKHTAR KAYANI, J: By way of this common judgment, I intend to decide all the above captioned petitions and Crl. Misc. having common questions of law and facts. 2. Through W. P No.1812-2022, the petitioner Arshad Sharif and two others namely Sami Ibrahim and Dr. Moiz Pirzada Journalists by profession, who was associated with ARY News was aggrieved of registration of multiple F.I.Rs against Arshad Sharif nationwide to take political revenge from him based upon Vlog recorded by the Journalist Mati Ullah Jan within the vicinity of Islamabad High Court. Therefore, Arshad Sharif (late) requested to consolidate all the F.I.Rs to settle the issue through a single trial under the jurisdiction of Islamabad and further requested to quash those F.I.Rs. 3. Through W. P No.2005-2022, the petitioner Arshad Sharif has prayed for consolidation of F.I.Rs and transfer of the same to Police Station Ramna, Islamabad with direction to Secretary, Ministry of Interior to take necessary steps for the transfer of all F.I.Rs lodged against the petitioner in Balochistan, Sindh and anywhere else in Pakistan to Police Station, Ramna, Islamabad. The detail of the F.I.Rs is as under:- i. F.I.R No.26/2022, P.S and District Dadu of 20 May 2022 u/s 131, 153 & 505 PPC. ii. FIR No.86/2022 PS B Section Latif Abad, District Hyderabad of 20 May 2022 u/s 131, 153 & 505 PPC. iii. FIR No.207/2022 PS Aharafigoth, District Malir Karachi of 19 May 2022 u/s 131, 153 & 505 PPC. iv. FIR No.7/2022 PS Levy Bostan & District Pishin of 19 May 2022 u/s 131, 153, 499 & 505 PPC. v. FIR No.12/2022 PS Chaman, District Killa Saifullah of 20 May 2022 u/s 34, 131, 499 & 505 PPC.
4. Through W.P No.1872-2022, the petitioner Muhammad Imran Riaz has prayed for provision of information and record pertaining to different F.I.Rs registered against him and his family members. As per stance of the petitioner, he has been victimized for expressing his distinct opinions and views as a
W.P.No.1812, 1872, 2005 and Crl. Misc. No.658 of 2022 Page | 3
journalist, whereby he has highlighted the illegalities and misconduct of various Federal and Provincial officials due to which they were annoyed. Being displeased, they lodged two bogus and frivolous F.I.Rs against him i.e. F.IR No.80/2022 dated 21.05.2022, under Sections 131, 153A, 505A PPC, P.S City B Section, District Nawab Shah and F.I.R No.46/2022 dated 22.05.2022, under Sections 131, 153, 505 PPC, Police Station Dhabeji, District Thatha. 5. Through Crl. Misc. No.658-2022, the petitioner Sami Ibrahim claims that he has been victimized due to his professional working, in which he has highlighted views in terms of freedom of expression, therefore, he has been nominated as an accused in case F.I.R No.12/2022, dated 21.05.2022, under Sections 131, 499, 505/34 PPC, P.S Chaman, District Killa Abdullah Balochistan, F.I.R No.7/2022 dated 19.05.2022, u/s 131, 153, 499, 505 PPC, P.S Levies, District Pishin, Balochistan, and F.I.R No.30/22, dated 19.05.2022, under Sections 131, 153A, 499, 505 PPC, Bijli Road, District Quetta. Therefore, prayed for transitory bails in all FIRs to approach the relevant/concerned courts of law for the redressal of his lawful right of bail before arrest. 6. Notices were issued to the Federal Government on multiple dates and cases were kept pending for their reports and in the meanwhile, Arshad Sharif left Pakistan to protect himself and later on was assassinated in Kenya. Federal Government Institutions submitted different reports, but the scenario remained unclear as to how many F.I.Rs have been lodged. Therefore, this Court is of the view that multiple FIRs lodged concerning the same incident or cause of action, particularly against an individual for their political beliefs or freedom of expression, such as opinions expressed in a V-Log, TV program, or newspaper, whether the individual is a journalist or otherwise, appear to be politically motivated with the intent to settle scores. It appears that the registration of FIRs has been used as a tool to curtail liberty and to punish individuals for their
W.P.No.1812, 1872, 2005 and Crl. Misc. No.658 of 2022 Page | 4
differing political ideologies and views. In such scenarios, these individuals are subjected to unjust harassment by various political authorities or public officials. 7. During the course of arguments, the registration of multiple F.I.Rs across the country qua the same cause of action against the same person, gave rise to a new dimension and unanswered question has surfaced as to how and under what circumstances protection could be given to the person under the constitutional framework against whom multiple F.I.Rs have been registered qua the same incident in different parts of country. 8. This Court has observed multiple facts vide order dated 19.03.2024, which are as under:- Keeping in view the ubiquitous usage of technology, internet and social media platforms by journalists, vloggers, podcasters, live streamers, reviewers and critics, social media influencers and others of the like, a new trend in the cognizance of crime has been observed over the past few years.
For instances, if someone from the above categories or any person publishes something on social media, gives a statement on social or mainstream media, passes a comment, criticizes a public official, display any visual (photo or video), plays an audio or shares his/her analysis, a third person who watches any of the above on social media or mainstream media or reads in newspaper, goes to the Police Station in his city and lodge an FIR against the said person because he felt aggrieved. In this way a chain of FIRs is formed and multiple FIRs are lodged against one person in several cities of all the four provinces and Islamabad Capital Territory without considering that at what place the said act/offence was committed.
It is a settled position that FIR must be lodged within the territorial limits of the police station of which the offence was committed. But here the situation is different and Code of Criminal Procedure is coming short of assistance because the alleged offence is committed inside the studio of a TV channel or on a social media platform (which is broadcasted all over the country) and seen in every corner of the country. In this scenario, Code of Criminal Procedure, Pakistan Penal Code and Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act are facing limitations before new technology.
W.P.No.1812, 1872, 2005 and Crl. Misc. No.658 of 2022 Page | 5
Under such cases where multiple FIRs are lodged in multiple cities of different provinces against one person or more than one person and the offence is same or similar then what course of action that person is supposed to take? He/She cannot be taken into custody at a time in all those places. Moreover, it seems practically very difficult for the accused nominated in multiple FIRs to seek bail from ten or more different cities in different provinces.
To tackle the issue, the following questions, surfaced on record. I. Would that person can be tried simultaneously at several places under the jurisdiction of several courts? Wouldn’t it be against the spirit of Section 235 Cr.P.C., where a person/accused of several offences is tried in a single trial? II. If the FIR (prior in time) would be considered as basic first information (no matter wherever it was lodged) and would the rest of the FIRs(in other provinces and same province) be converted/treated as 161 statements by transferring the same to the place where initial FIR was registered or treated as supplementary to main case. a) Can it be done? If yes, under what procedure? b) If not, can a High Court quash those other FIRs lodged in different jurisdictions because the offence and accused are same? c) What is way forward keeping in view the celebrated judgment of Honorable Supreme Court i.e. PLD 2017 SC 595 (Sughran Bibi Versus the State).
III. In such circumstances, where an official/public office holder was criticized etc. whether the head of that department can lodge an FIR where the headquarter of the department is located? a) If the department or the official himself does not lodge an FIR, whether a private individual can lodge FIR based on official reverence/affinity only?
IV. Whether Inter-Provincial transfer or consolidation of FIRs is permissible when the accused and offence are same? V. One or several offences arising out of one transaction (just for example, offences u/s 131, 153, 153A, 153B, 499, 505, 295, 298 of PPC when broadcasted online and under sections 11, 16, 20 and 22A PECA) multiple FIRs lodged in several provinces of Pakistan, can they be consolidated in one High Court in terms
W.P.No.1812, 1872, 2005 and Crl. Misc. No.658 of 2022 Page | 6
of Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 and Section 561 Cr.P.C. VI. Does PECA permit to lodge an FIR wherever an allegedly blasphemous or disrespectful/insulting content is viewed, read or listened to irrespective of the specified place of occurrence? VII. Do Police Rules, 1934 permit investigation of multiple FIRs containing same offence under one consolidated or Joint Investigation Team (JIT) under the law?
9. In order to resolve above matter and to reach at conclusive solution under the law, this Court has appointed three amici i.e. Ms. Khadija Ali, Advocate, Mr. Naseem Zia, District Public Prosecutor, Islamabad and Mr. Kamran Aadil, DIG Punjab Police, Lahore in this case to assist this Court on the above mentioned issues. 10. The first two questions are taken together to answer. The assistance in this regard was taken from research conducted by Research Centre Lahore High Court, Lahore, which is as under:- QUESTIONS NO.1 & II At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention here that the matter of registration of multiple FIRs by different individuals regarding same occurrence has been settled by the Supreme Court of Pakistan Sughran Bibi Case (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 595). In this case, the Supreme Court after discussing all the case law developed on the subject, held that after entering the first information relating to commission of a cognizable offence in the prescribed book, i.e. after registration of an FIR the matter became a “case”, and thereafter every step taken in the ensuing investigation was a step taken in that case. The Court held that the perusal of Rule 24.5 of the Police Rules, 1934 showed that commission of a cognizable offence, when reported to the police through the first information and registered in the FIR register, was treated as a “case” bearing an annual serial number and such “case”
W.P.No.1812, 1872, 2005 and Crl. Misc. No.658 of 2022 Page | 7
carried the same number forever irrespective of any number of different versions received by the police regarding commission of the said offence or any number of different circumstances or sets of culprits brought to the notice of the investigating officer during the investigation of the “case”. The Court further held that during the investigation conducted after registration of an FIR, the investigating officer may record any number of versions of the same incident brought to his notice by different persons which versions were to be recorded by him under S. 161, Cr.P.C. in the same case. However no separate FIR was to be recorded for any new version of the same incident brought to the notice of the investigating officer during the investigation of the case and all subsequent or divergent versions of the same occurrence or the persons involved therein were to be received, recorded and investigated by the investigating officer in the same “case” which was based upon the one and only FIR registered in respect of the relevant “offence” in the prescribed book kept at the local police station. The principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Sughran Bibi case is binding on all courts in Pakistan in terms of Article 189 of the Constitution.
11. In a recent judgment of the Peshawar High Court titled Asad Qaiser vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Writ Petition No.5281-P/2023), the matter of registration of multiple FIRs against same person and his arrest in such cases one after the other came for consideration before High Court. The High Court while relying upon Mst. Razia Pervez and another v. the Senior Superintendent of Police Multan and 05 others (1992 PCrLJ 131) held that where more than one FIRs are registered against a person and he is arrested in one of them and
W.P.No.1812, 1872, 2005 and Crl. Misc. No.658 of 2022 Page | 8
remanded to physical custody then he should be interrogated about the allegations against him in all the cases. The Court further held that the detention of the accused persons required in more than one case already registered against him, for more than fourteen (14) days would be illegal and such a person shall be deemed to have been arrested in all the cases registered against him. The Court finally held that “Arrest of an accused persons involved in so many criminal cases of the same province after his release on bail in another case amounts to colorful exercise of powers which cannot be countenanced at any cost.” 12. Similarly, in another recent case titled Muhammad Azam Khan Swati v. Inspector General of Police, Balochistan and 2 others (PLD 2023 Balochistan 85), the Petitioner sought quashing of all FIRs as they contained similar allegations with reference to one occurrence against which one case had already been pending in another province. In this case the petitioner was facing multiple FIRs on the allegations of condemnation of creation of State and advocacy of abolition of its sovereignty, sedition, abetting mutiny, attempting to seduce a soldier or airman from his duty, wantonly giving provision with intent to cause riot, defamation, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace and criminal intimidation. Some of the FIR’s were registered for offences under Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016. One of the main allegations against the petitioner was that he with malafide intention and ulterior motives had started highly obnoxious campaign of intimidating tweets through his personal account against state institutions and senior functionaries, including Chief of Army Staff of Pakistan Army and such mischievous act of subversion created a rift between personnel of armed forces to harm the State of Pakistan. The Court held as follows:
W.P.No.1812, 1872, 2005 and Crl. Misc. No.658 of 2022 Page | 9
“Though a strait Jacket formula cannot be laid down, yet the only test whether multiple FIRs can be permitted to exist. In such case, the Court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to all the FIRs and the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether all the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents, which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is in affirmative, the second or the remaining FIRs are liable to be quashed. However, in case, the contrary is proved, where the version in the second FIR is different and they are in respect of the two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible.” The Court further observed that: “Admittedly, all the aforementioned FIRs have been registered for the same incident under the same provisions of law against the same accused and in such state of affairs, taking cognizance by multiple Courts, having different territorial jurisdiction simultaneously, seems to be in violation of Articles 4 and 13 of the Constitution, Section 403 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act 1897. Similarly, Part VI-Chapter XV Sections 177, 179, 180, 181 and Section 235 of the Cr.P.C. also envisage a single trial.” The Court observed that: “The petitioner has been charge-sheeted in a number of cases and he shall either be convicted or acquitted on the basis of facts and evidence. In such view of the matter the simultaneous and continuous trials in presence of same facts and on the same set of evidence and allegations, would patently result in a duplicate punishment or at least a duplicate trial in violation of the doctrine of double jeopardy” The Court further held that: “It is true that the disputed tweets contain highly obnoxious and intimidating language but it is equally true that multiple registration of FIRs cannot be allowed that too respect of one and the same offence in view of the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme in case of “Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State” (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 595).”
13. The wisdom laid down in both the above judgments of the High Court although held it in clear terms that a person arrested in one of the many cases of
W.P.No.1812, 1872, 2005 and Crl. Misc. No.658 of 2022 Page | 10
the same nature registered against him, would be deemed arrested in all cases and that the subsequent FIR’s on same or similar facts are liable to be quashed but said ruling was restricted to the FIR’s registered within the territorial limits of the said provinces, therefore, further deliberation on the question is required, which is as follows:- The basic section of Code of Criminal Procedure dealing with territorial jurisdiction of investigation agency and criminal courts is section 177 which is reproduced as under: “177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial: Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed.”
Mr. Naseem Zia, District Public Prosecutor has lead his argument on this question and assisted that the jurisdiction in criminal matters/proceedings initiated in different courts in two or more High Court is dealt with under Section 185 which is as under: “185. High Court to decide, in case of doubt, district where inquiry or trial shall take place. (1) Whenever a question arises as to which of two or more Courts subordinate to the same High Court ought to inquire into or try any offence, it shall be decided by that High Court.” (2) Where two or more Courts not subordinate to the same High Court have taken cognizance of the same offence the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced may direct the trial of such offender to be held in any Court subordinate to it, and if so decides, all other proceedings; against such person in, respect of such offence shall be discontinued. If Such High Court, upon the matter, having been brought to its notice, does not so decide, any other High Court/within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction such proceedings are pending may give a like direction, and upon its so doing all other such proceedings shall be discontinued.”
The law mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 185 of the Code is in line with the wisdom laid down in the Sughran Bibi Case because both provide that
W.P.No.1812, 1872, 2005 and Crl. Misc. No.658 of 2022 Page | 11
the subsequent proceedings/FIRs are liable to be discontinued/quashed. Consequently first part of the question under consideration in the manner that if multiple FIRs have been registered against one person on same offence, the information lodged prior in time will prevail and as far as the question of jurisdiction of trial is concerned, if the offence has taken place within jurisdiction of single High Court, the Court is competent to order for trial before any district, and whereas if the offences have taken place in the jurisdiction of two High Court then jurisdiction of the Court will be of the Court, where proceedings were first concerned, and all other proceedings against such person in respect of such offence shall be discontinued. 14. As far as the matter of single trial under Section 235 of the Code is concerned, before discussing its essential ingredients/pre-conditions, it is appropriate to reproduce the said section as under: “235. Trial for more than one offence: (1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence-
(2) Offence falling within two definitions: If the acts alleged constitute an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for; each of such offences.
This section has been interpreted by superior Courts and the landmark judgment in this regard is Azam Shah v. the State (1990 SCMR 1360) where the Supreme Court held as follows: This section is enabling and, therefore, it is not obligatory that all the charges should be specified. The other requirement is that there must be one continuous thread of a common purpose running through the acts to support a joinder of charges in respect thereof, and `transaction' means a group of facts so connected together as to involve certain ideas namely, unity, continuity and connection. In order to determine whether a group of facts constitute one transaction it is necessary to ascertain
W.P.No.1812, 1872, 2005 and Crl. Misc. No.658 of 2022 Page | 12
whether they are so connected together as to constitute a whole which can be properly described as a transaction. It is not possible to enunciate any comprehensive formula of universal applicability for the purpose of determining whether two or more acts constitute the same transaction, but circumstances which bear on the determination of the question in any individual case can be indicated by saying that proximity of time, unity or proximity of place, continuity of action and community of purpose or design are the principal criteria for deciding whether certain acts form parts of same transaction or not.
Earlier in Muhammad Mosaddar Haque and another v. The State (PLD 1958 SC 131), The Supreme Court observed as under: In dealing with the question as to what constitutes "the same transaction" Courts, while indicating that the tests to be employed are proximity of time and place, community of purpose or design and, continuity of action, have also pointed out that the two latter are the essential elements which are necessary in order to link together different acts into the same transaction.”
Similarly, in Noor Khan v. The State (PLD 1958 Lahore 1052), the Lahore High Court held as:- It is, however, now well settled that the real and substantial test for determining whether several offences are so connected together as to form one transaction is…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.