Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2024 IHC 126
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Year of Decision: 2024
Decision Date: 2024-06-25
Parties: Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed vs IG, Islamabad and others
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court on 2024-06-25, officially reported as 2024 IHC 126. In this matter between Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed and IG, Islamabad and others, 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.
Case cited as 2024IHC126
Court Name: Islamabad High Court Judge(s): Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri Title: Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed vs IG, Islamabad and others Case No.: Writ Petition No. 416 of 2023 Date of Judgment:2024-06-25 Reported As: 2024 IHC 126 Result: Petition Allowed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT TARIQ MEHMOOD JAHANGIRI, J: The Petitioner, through the instant petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("Constitution"), seeks the quashing of following First Information Reports ("FIRs') by declaring them illegal, unlawful, result of abuse of powers and misuse of authority: i. FIR No. 94/2023, dated 01.02.2023, offences under sections 120B, 153A and 505 of the Pakistan Penal Code,1860 ("PPC'), registered at police station Aabpara, Islamabad ("FIR I'); ii. FIR No. 47/2023, dated 02.02.2023, offences under sections 506ii, 353 and 186 of PPC, registered at police station Murree, District Murree ("FIR II'); and iii. FIR No. 40/2023, dated 02.02.2023, offences under sections 506, 504, 500 and 153 of PPC, registered at police station Mochko, Keamari, Karachi ("FIR III'). 02. Brief facts, leading to the instant petition, are that the Petitioner is the chairperson of political party i.e. Awami Muslim League, a veteran politician, on numerous occasions he was elected as member of the National Assembly of Pakistan and served in the Federal Government in various capacities. He is currently in opposition and an ally of Imran Khan and PTI. A campaign of political victimization commenced and a notice under section 160 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ("Cr.P.C') was maliciously issued to him after obtaining a frivolous application from a dummy complainant. The Petitioner assailed that notice in this Court through the Writ Petition No. 340 of 2023 on 01.02.2023, whereby operation of the said notice was suspended, and notices were issued to the IG and other police officials to appear on 06.02.2023. However, the police officials, headed by SHO Ashfaq Ahmed Warraich and Inspector Ashiq Ali, in violation of the aforenoted order, raided
---
## Page 2
the house of Petitioner, situated at Bahria Golf City, Tehsil Murree, District Rawalpindi, at midnight without a warrant and without associating the local police and valuable articles and assets, maltreated his employees, illegally arrested him in a case FIR No. 94/2023, dated 01.02.2023, offences under sections 120B, 153A and 505 of the PPC, registered at police station Aabpara, Islamabad. The political opponents in furtherance of their campaign of political victimization lodged another frivolous case against the Petitioner i.e. FIR No. 47/2023, dated 02.02.2023, offences under sections 506ii, 353 and 186 of PPC, registered at police station Murree, on the complaint of Ashiq Ali Munawar Inspector (Investigation) at police station Aabpara, Islamabad. Moreover, the scale of vindictive campaign was augmented by the Federal and Provincial Governments of the PDM and its nominated caretaker government when the police and other agencies were used to register frivolous cases against the Petitioner at different police stations on the complaints of various dummy persons by abusing their powers and authority. When the Petitioner was in physical custody of Islamabad police yet another criminal case has been lodged against him in the province of Sindh on the complaint of Khuda Bakhsh i.e. FIR No. 40/2023, dated 02.02.2023, offences under sections 506, 504, 500 and 153 of PPC, registered at police station Mochko, Keamari, Karachi. Similarly, one more FIR has been registered in the province of Balochistan i.e. FIR No. 20/23, dated 04.02.2023, offences under sections 153, 506, 500, 186 of PPC and section 25-D of the Telegraph Act, 1885, registered at police station Berot Hub, District Lasbellah, Balochistan. Moreover, identical applications were filed in different areas in order to register multiple FIRs against the Petitioner. Thus, the above-mentioned actions demonstrate the magnitude of high-handedness, malafides and misuse of authority on the part of the respondents. The Petitioner, in a nutshell, has sought to quash the impugned FIRs as mentioned above. 03. Similar issues were raised in the following connected Writ Petitions: i. The W.P. No. 3778 of 2022, titled as "Sohail Ali Khan versus Federation of Pakistan, etc." filed by Sohail Ali Khan, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and ex-officio Managing Director, PTV. ii. The W.P. No. 3779 of 2022, titled as "Mrs. Shahira Shahid versus Federation of Pakistan, etc." filed by Shahira Shahid, Additional Secretary Incharge, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and ex- officio Chairperson PTV. iii. The W.P. No. 3780 of 2022, titled as "Mirza Rashid Baig versus Federation of Pakistan, etc." filed by Mirza Rashid Baig, Director News, PTV News Centre. The Petitioners, Sohail Ali Khan and Mirza Rashid Baig, through their aforesaid Petitions, had challenged the following two FIRs which were registered against them on the complaints of supporters of PTI and Imran Khan in the jurisdiction of Lahore, Punjab and Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, respectively, and gist of the said FIRs is as under: i. FIR No. 3715/22, dated 19.09.2022, registered on the complaint of Arshad-ur-Rehman son of Muhammad Hassan, Imam Masjid and Khateeb in Jamia Masjid Ayesha Siddiqa, Jiwa Park, Bagrian, Lahore, under sections 9, 11-X(3) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, at police station Green Town, Lahore, wherein it was alleged that Mr. Javed Latif, (former Federal Minister, Member of the National Assembly of Pakistan and Member of PML-N), uttered some objectionable words against Mr. Imran Khan, Chairman PTI, during a press conference, which was broadcast on Pakistan Television (PTV), in connivance with Maryam Aurangzeb (former Member of the National Assembly of Pakistan and Member of PML-N) and abetted by Sohail Ali Khan, Managing Director, PTV and Mirza Rashid Baig, Controller Programme, PTV and thus committed a heinous crime. ("FIR Green Town, Lahore'). ii. FIR No. 1273/22, dated 19.09.2022, registered on the complaint of Mr. Rehman Ullah son of Syed Hamza, under sections 506, 505, 298, 153-A, 511 P.P.C. and 7, 9, 11-W and 11- X(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, at police station Rehman Baba, District Peshawar, wherein it was alleged that on
---
## Page 3
14.09.2022, a press conference was conducted by Mian Javed Latif (former Member of the National Assembly of Pakistan and Member of PML-N), at the behest of Maryam Aurangzeb (former member of the National Assembly of Pakistan and Member of PML-N) was broadcast on PTV during which Mr. Javed Latif, uttered objectionable remarks/words against Mr. Imran Khan, chairman PTI, the said act was committed with the help of Shahira Shahid, Chairperson PTV and Sohail Ali Khan, Managing Director, PTV, thus committed a heinous crime. ("FIR Rehman Baba, Peshawar'). The Petitioner Shahira Shahid, through W.P. No. 3779/2022 also impugned the aforenoted FIR registered at P.S. Rehman Baba, Peshawar. 04. As common questions of law were involved in the above-mentioned petitions for quashing of the FIRs in four (04) provinces of the country regarding the occurrence allegedly took place in Islamabad, so the following questions were framed:- i. Whether FIR can be registered in a case where the contents of the FIR/allegation levelled in the FIR do not disclose commission of a cognizable offence; ii. Whether FIR can be registered in four (04) provinces of the country regarding the occurrence allegedly took place in Islamabad; iii. Whether multiple FIRs (more than one FIR) can be registered regarding one/single occurrence. In order to resolve the above-mentioned important controversies, notices were issued to the Attorney General for Pakistan, Vice Chairman of Pakistan Bar and Islamabad Bar Councils, Presidents of Supreme Court and Islamabad High Court Bar Associations, Advocate Generals and Prosecutor Generals of the provinces, Inspector Generals of the provinces, Director General, FIA and complainants of the FIRs. In compliance of the notices, most of the law FIRs (more than one FIR) cannot be registered in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled as Mst. Sughran Bibi versus The State (PLD 2018 SC 595). 05. Police officials present in the Court and law officers also stated that FIR regarding occurrence allegedly took place in Islamabad cannot be registered in other provinces of the country, whereas in case where contents of the FIR do not disclose commission of cognizable offence, FIR cannot be registered, so upon asking the question that how the FIRs have been registered in violation of law, police officials/I.O of the case FIR No. 1273/22, dated 19.09.2022, under sections 506, 505, 298, 153-A, 511 P.P.C. and 7, 9, 11-W and 11- X(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, at police station Rehman Baba, District Peshawar, appeared and stated that the police have transferred the matter to FIA, whereas, the Assistant Director (Legal) CCRC, F.I.A., Peshawar present in the Court admitted that no case could be registered and stated that the inquiry has been closed. Moreover, the Investigating Officer and other police officials of the case FIR No. 3715/22, dated 19.09.2022, under sections 9, 11-X(3) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, at police station Green Town, Lahore, also stated that no case in Lahore could be registered, so the police has submitted the report for the cancellation of FIR in the concerned Court. The same stance was taken by the police of P.S Lasbellah, Balochistan that the cancellation report of the FIR has been moved, so the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIRs in Peshawar, Lahore and Lasbellah opted to withdraw the petitions, so the petitions were dismissed as withdrawn, regarding the said FIRs. Similarly, the learned counsel for the Petitioner opted not to press the matter to the extent of impugned FIR II which was registered in P.S. Murree, Rawalpindi. As far as the FIR I is concerned, the Petitioner was arrested and subsequently enlarged on bail by another Bench of this Court, and he is now facing trial. In light of the foregoing events, learned counsel for the Petitioner opted not to press the W.P. No. 340 of 2023 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.02.2023. 6. Now, the matter which needs adjudication of this Court is that whether the FIR No. 40/2023, dated 02.02.2023, offences under sections 506, 504, 500 and 153 of PPC, registered at police station
---
## Page 4
Mochko, Keamari, Karachi can be quashed or not. In the FIR of Karachi, the only allegation levelled is that the petitioner has uttered words () and () in Polyclinic Hospital, Islamabad, against Bilawal Bhutto Chairman Pakistan Peoples Party / Foreign Minister in front of media persons when the petitioner was in custody of Islamabad Police. The DSP (Investigation), I.O. and other police officials appeared in the Court from Karachi, when confronted, frankly admitted that no case regarding uttering () and () could be registered and also admitted that regarding the alleged occurrence which took place in Polyclinic Hospital, Islamabad, an FIR in Karachi cannot be registered but stated that senior leader of Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) i.e. Bilawal Bhutto Zardari is involved, so they cannot give statement officially regarding the quashing of the FIR. 7. Moreover, in compliance of order of this Court, the SP (Investigation) Keamari, Karachi submitted a written report/submissions, duly signed and approved by the Inspector General of Police, Sindh and the Prosecutor General, Sindh, wherein it is mentioned that upon the perusal of the contents of the impugned FIR III (40/23 P.S. Mochko, Karachi) and transcription, the Petitioner allegedly uttered sordid and obscene words against the head of a political party which provoked party workers, thus, the matter requires fair investigation. It is further stated that the Petitioner committed the offence within the territorial jurisdiction of the police station Aabpara, Islamabad and an FIR was not registered in the said police station, however, section 179 of the Cr.P.C allows legal action to be taken regarding an occurrence of another jurisdiction when consequences of such an occurrence ensued in other places. Lastly, it is stated that the police of P.S. Mochko Keamari, Karachi, or any other police officers or team of police officers be allowed to fairly investigate the matter to prepare and submit a report before a Court of law. 08. The learned counsel for the Petitioner, inter-alia, submits that the impugned FIR III (40/23 P.S. Mochko, Karachi) is registered on the complaint of Khuda Bakhsh (who belongs to a political party i.e. PPP) when the Petitioner was in custody of Islamabad police, the complainant alleged that the Petitioner uttered unethical and vile/vulgar words against the chairperson, of the PPP, Mr. Bilawal Bhutto at Polyclinic Hospital, Islamabad and the said FIR is sheer mockery of the law and not sustainable; the impugned FIR is the result of malice, political victimization, illegalities, police excesses, misuse of authority, abuse of power and blatant contraventions of fundamental rights of Petitioner as guaranteed under Articles 4, 9, 10A, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19 of the Constitution and the constitutional Courts are the custodians of fundamental rights of citizens and civil liberties, thus, it becomes imperative to pass appropriate orders when these rights are patently infringed; he, further, submits that in light of Mst. Sughran Bibi versus The State (PLD 2018 SC 595) multiple FIRs cannot be registered regarding thesame occurrence, only one FIR can be registered and during investigation cross versions of different persons regarding the same occurrence can be recorded, however, a separate FIR cannot be registered for every new version, hence, as per the apex Court's decision multiple FIRs are not sustainable in law; furthermore, he submits that as per sections 234, 235 and 239 of Cr.P.C if, in one series of acts linked to form a same transaction, more than one offence is committed by the same person, he can be charged and tried at one trial for such offences and the impugned FIRs are amenable to the aforesaid provisions, hence, separate proceedings at different places are not maintainable; he, further, submits that the Petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of his grievances as no other efficacious and adequate alternate remedy is available to him; law provides specific territorial jurisdiction on every police station for registration of FIR and section 179 of Cr.P.C does not empower police to register an FIR regarding an occurrence which wholly took place in another police station's jurisdiction; lastly, he submits that section 177 of Cr.P.C provides that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired and tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it is committed.
---
## Page 5
09. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant of the impugned FIR III (40/23 P.S. Mochko, Karachi), inter-alia, submits that the police officials are bound to register an FIR whenever a cognizable offence is reported to them; the derogatory/unethical remarks uttered by the Petitioner, as narrated in the impugned FIR, attract the offence of defamation under section 499 of the PPC; section 179 of the Cr.P.C confers authority on a policestation of another jurisdiction to register an FIR regarding an offence that has not occurred in its jurisdiction but the consequences thereof have ensued in the said jurisdiction; admittedly the occurrence had taken place in the Polyclinic Hospital, Islamabad, however, the derogatory remarks of the Petitioner caused emotional damage/harm that ensued beyond the territorial limits of the ICT; an FIR in its entirety cannot be quashed on the basis of jurisdictional technicalities; High Court is not allowed to assume the role of investigating agency and it cannot quash an FIR at investigation stage; the Petitioner should surrender before the police of P.S Mochko and approach the Judicial Magistrate of P.S Mochko to avail alternative remedy of bail; he lastly prayed that the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. The submissions of learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record has been perused with their assistance. This Court sought assistance from various representative bodies of the Bar, through its order dated 06.02.2023, to decide the legal issues involved in the instant case. In this regard, Vice Chairman, Islamabad Bar Council, Islamabad, President of Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA) and Law Officers made submissions before this Court. Moreover, President of IHCBA submitted written submissions stating that section 179 of the Cr.P.C pertains to a trial of an accused, and it caters to a situation where an act is done in one place and its consequences follow into another place, registration of multiple FIRs on the basis of same occurrence is violative of section 179 of the Cr.P.C and it also attracts double jeopardy which is prohibited under Article 13 of the Constitution and section 403 of the Cr.P.C. The occurrence of the instant case took place in the jurisdiction of ICT where the legal process first commenced, thus, this Court has ample powers under section 185 of the Cr.P.C to discontinue other trials and it can direct that the trial of the accused be held in the Courts subordinate to it; he lastly submitted that in view of the case of Mst. Sughran Bibi versus The State (PLD 2018 SC 595) no second FIR can be registered in respect of the same occurrence/incident. 12. Thus, now the substantial matter that needs to be addressed by this Court relates to the impugned FIR III i.e. FIR No. 40/2023, dated 02.02.2023, offences under sections 506, 504, 500 and 153 of PPC, registered at police station Mochko, Keamari, Karachi. Whereas the allegations against the Petitioner are that the complainant is the resident of Karachi and working as a senior Deputy President at PS-112 of Pakistan Peoples Party. He claimed that on 02.02.2023 at 16:30 hours he saw on social media that the Petitioner used () and () words against the Chairman PPP Bilawal Bhutto (former Foreign Minister of Pakistan) at the Polyclinic Hospital, Islamabad with reporters of media. He further stated that the aforesaid utterances provoked thousands of party workers of PPP and many of them came to roads who were stopped by the complainant and his companions. It was also alleged that the Petitioner deliberately conspired to disturb the peace and order, cause clash and bloodshed, and disseminate incitement. 13. To resolve the controversy in the instant matter, points mentioned in paragraph No. 4 will be discussed in the following paragraphs. 14. The contents of the impugned FIR III (40/23 P.S. Mochko, Karachi) can be divided into two parts. The first part wholly pertains to the alleged immoral utterances of the Petitioner which had admittedly occurred within the territorial limits of the Islamabad. Whereas the second part relates to the the alleged reaction of party workers to the said utterances of the Petitioner in the territorial limits of Karachi. The Petitioner allegedly committed offences at Polyclinic Hospital, Islamabad
---
## Page 6
which comes under the jurisdiction of police station Aabpara, Islamabad. It is evident from the perusal of the contents of the FIR that the Petitioner's alleged commission of offence followed no consequences in the province of Sindh because the whole occurrence was committed in the vicinity of the Islamabad. Moreover, the bare reading of the contents of the FIR makes it unequivocally clear that no cognizable offence is made out for the utterances of () and () words against another person, and such utterances do not attract any cognizable offence. Sections 153, 500, 504 and 506 of the PPC have been levelled in the FIR which are non-cognizable offences except for section 153 of the PPC. It seems that section 153 of the PPC has been added just to register the FIR III. Section 153 of the PPC is reproduced below for ease of reference: "153. Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot-if rioting be committed; if not committed. Whoever malignantly, or wantonly, by doing anything which is illegal, gives provocation to any person intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting to be committed, shall, if the offence of rioting be committed inconsequence of such provocation, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both; and if the offence of rioting be not committed, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both." The plain reading of the contents of FIR unequivocally shows that no cognizable offence is made out. Moreover, the whole occurrence, as alleged, was committed by the Petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of the ICT. Thus, it becomes quite obvious that the Petitioner did not commit any cognizable offence in the territorial jurisdiction of Karachi. 15. Another crucial point that needs determination is whether an FIR can only be registered in a local police station in whose territorial jurisdiction a cognizable offence is committed. The procedure for registration of FIR is stipulated in the Cr.P.C and Police Rules 1934 ("Police Rules"). According to the Cr.P.C, offences are categorized into cognizable and non-cognizable. Section 154 of the Cr.P.C deals with the registration of FIR pertaining to cognizable offences which reads as under: "154. Information in cognizable cases. Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant, and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the Provincial Government may prescribe in this behalf." Moreover, the Supreme Court in a landmark case titled as Mst. Sughran Bibi versus The State (PLD 2018 SC 595) interpreted section 154 of Cr.P.C in the following manner: "12. Section 154, Cr.P.C. is the legal provision under which an FIR is registered in respect of commission of a cognizable offence...It is straightaway to be noticed that the heading of this section speaks of "cognizable cases" meaning thereby 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 becomes a "case". We have found the learned Attorney-General to be entirely justified in maintaining that an FIR is essentially an "incident report which informs the police for the first time about an occurrence in which some cognizable offence has been committed and after registration of the FIR the occurrence is treated as a "case and thereafter every step taken in the ensuing investigation under sections 156, 157 and 159, Cr.P.C. is a step taken in that case...." "13. The same distinction between a "case" and an "information" about commission of an offence also appears to be writ large in the relevant Police Rules, 1934 as well. Rule 24.1 of the said Rules in Chapter XXIV dealing with Information to the Police speaks of "information relating to an offence"
---
## Page 7
received under section 154, Cr.P.C. and Rule 24.5 makes that distinction absolutely clear. Rule 24.5 of the said Rules provides as follows: "24.5. First Information Report Register.-- (1) The First Information Report Register shall be a printed book in Form 24.5 (1) consisting of 200 pages and shall be completely filled before a new one is commenced. Cases shall bear an annual serial number in each police station for each calendar year......" It is clear from Rule 24.5 reproduced above that commission of a cognizable offence, when reported to the police through the first information and registered in the FIR register, is treated as a "case" bearing an annual serial number and such "case" carries the same number for ever 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"." Further, the terms "officer incharge of a police station" and "police station" are assigned the following meanings under section 4 of the Cr.P.C: "(p) "Officer incharge of a police station." "Officer incharge of a police station" includes, when the officer incharge of the police station is absent from the station house or unable from illness or other cause to perform…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.