"\u003chtml xmlns:o=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office\"\r\nxmlns:w=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word\"\r\nxmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chead\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta http-equiv=Content-Type content=\"text/html; charset=windows-1252\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=ProgId content=Word.Document\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Generator content=\"Microsoft Word 9\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Originator content=\"Microsoft Word 9\"\u003e\r\n\u003clink rel=File-List href=\"./1993J8_files/filelist.xml\"\u003e\r\n\u003ctitle\u003eCOURT LAYS THE LAW\u003c/title\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003co:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Author\u003eSyed Aleem Muzaffar\u003c/o:Author\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Template\u003eNormal\u003c/o:Template\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastAuthor\u003eSaif\u003c/o:LastAuthor\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Revision\u003e4\u003c/o:Revision\u003e\r\n  \u003co:TotalTime\u003e0\u003c/o:TotalTime\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Created\u003e2002-04-11T05:45:00Z\u003c/o:Created\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastSaved\u003e2003-01-03T06:59:00Z\u003c/o:LastSaved\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Pages\u003e1\u003c/o:Pages\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Words\u003e1627\u003c/o:Words\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Characters\u003e9274\u003c/o:Characters\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Company\u003eORATIER\u003c/o:Company\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Lines\u003e77\u003c/o:Lines\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Paragraphs\u003e18\u003c/o:Paragraphs\u003e\r\n  \u003co:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e11389\u003c/o:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Version\u003e9.2720\u003c/o:Version\u003e\r\n \u003c/o:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003cw:WordDocument\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:View\u003eNormal\u003c/w:View\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e2.85 pt\u003c/w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e2\u003c/w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:WordDocument\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n\u003c!--\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\np.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal\r\n\t{mso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmargin:0in;\r\n\tmargin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:12.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";}\r\nh1\r\n\t{mso-style-next:Normal;\r\n\tmargin-top:0in;\r\n\tmargin-right:1.95in;\r\n\tmargin-bottom:0in;\r\n\tmargin-left:0in;\r\n\tmargin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\ttext-align:center;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tpage-break-after:avoid;\r\n\tmso-outline-level:1;\r\n\tfont-size:12.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-font-kerning:0pt;\r\n\tmso-ansi-language:EN-GB;\r\n\tmso-bidi-font-weight:normal;}\r\n@page Section1\r\n\t{size:6.35in 841.7pt;\r\n\tmargin:.75in 0in 2.9pt .35in;\r\n\tmso-header-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-footer-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-paper-source:0;}\r\ndiv.Section1\r\n\t{page:Section1;}\r\n--\u003e\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\u003cbody lang=EN-US style=\u0027tab-interval:.5in\u0027\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=Section1\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003ch1 style=\u0027margin-right:0in\u0027\u003e\u003cspan lang=EN-GB\u003eCOURT LAYS THE LAW\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h1\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:bold\u0027\u003eBy\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:bold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:bold\u0027\u003eProf. Masood Ahmed Abbasi, Advocate\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003eIn English system of `administration of justice\u0027 the Superior Courts are\r\ndesigned to read, discuss, consider, interpret and eventually lay the law on\r\nall intricate and ticklish pieces of legislation brought before them for\r\nadjudication, for the benefit of the society at large and the guidance of the\r\nlitigant\u0026#8209;public and subordinate judiciary in particular. One of such\r\nclassical judgments delivered by our Supreme Court, resolving the century\u0026#8209;old\r\njudicial controversy on the interpretation of section 154 read with section 173\r\nof Chapter XIV of Criminal Procedure Code titled `Information to the police and\r\ntheir powers to investigate\u0027 comes to mind, under citation PLD 1985 SC 62.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003eWhat is the remedy available to the informer/complainant whose F.I.R.\r\nunder section 154, Cr.P.C., after due investigation, is found FALSE by the\r\nPolice in. their Final Report disposed of `B\u0027 Class\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;and\r\naccordingly cancelled with due sanction and approval of the Magistrate under\r\nsection 173, Cr.P.C.? Whether the approval so given by the Magistrate is a\r\njudicial order amenable to revision by the High Court under sections 435 to\r\n439, Cr.P.C, or an administrative order. having attained finality for the\r\npurposes of judicial scrutiny and subsequential remedy? Different and\r\ncontrdictory judicial views were expressed by different High Courts of British\r\nIndia, as well as Bharat and Pakistan, and no final authoritative guidance on\r\nthis most crucial and intricate question of law of far\u0026#8209;reaching\r\nconsequences, enjoying the sanction of Article 189 of the Constitution of\r\nPakistan, was available to litigant\u0026#8209;public and the subordinate Judiciary\r\nfor over a long period of time, till our Supreme Court resolved the controversy\r\nwith highest amount of sagacity, legal acumen, even balance of judicial wisdom\r\nand reason. Delivering the leading judgment in that case, Mr. Justice Shafiur\r\nRahman having since earned the reputation of striking a judicial balance of\r\nhighest perfection in every legal controversy brought before him, observed:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;The specific question of law to examine which leave to appeal has\r\nbeen granted is not free from controversy. It would appear that in a number of\r\ncases the list whereof, which is by no means exhaustive but only illustrative,\r\nfollows, it was held that cancellation of a case and discharge of an accused on\r\na report under section 173, Cr. P.C. is a judicial act of the Court. There is\r\nalso the other view that a Magistrate, while cancelling a case; on a report of\r\nthe police under section 173, Cr. P.C. is not acting as Court nor such an order\r\nis revisable:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:bold\u0027\u003eA\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e         \u003c/span\u003eIn\r\nsupport of the view that in discharging the accused on report under section\r\n173, Cr. P.C. and in cancelling the registered criminal case the Magistrate\r\nacts as a Court and his order is revisable under section 439, Cr. P.C. the\r\nfollowing Decisions are referable:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e(i) Amir Ali v. The State and others PLD 1968 Lah. 537.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e(ii) State v. Vipra Khimji Gangaram 1952 Cr LJ 1084.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e(iii) E.Pedda Subba Reddy v. State and another AIR 1969 AP 281.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e(iv) Narayan Ramchandra Karambelkar v. The State 1972 Cr.LJ 1440 (F.B.).\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e(v) Krishna v. State 1966 Cr.LJ 650.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:bold\u0027\u003eB.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e         \u003c/span\u003eIn\r\nsupport of the view that in discharging the accused and cancelling a registered\r\ncriminal case, on a report under section 173, Cr.P.C., a Magistrate does not\r\nact as Court, that his order is administrative and not revisable under section\r\n439, Cr.P.C., the following decisions are referable:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e(i) Wazir v. The State PLD 1962 L.A. 405 (F.B.),\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e(ii) Emperor v. Hayat Fateh Din AIR 1948 La h. 184 (FB),\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e(iii) Mst. Fatima Bibi v.\u0026#8209;Rana Lal Hassan 1970 PCr.LJ 178.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e(iv) Muhammad Ishaque Khan v. Abdul Hamis Khan PLD 1958 Azad J\u0026amp;K 42.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e(v) Brahm Dev v. Emperor AIR 1983 Lah.469.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e(vi) Dharamdas Hiranand v. Emperor AIR 1983 Sindh 213\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e(vii) Uma Singh v. Emperor AIR 1933 Pat. 242.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e(viii) Ramsarup v. State. AIR 1951 Raj. 146,\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003eAmongst the cases referred to above by the Supreme Court it is pertinent\r\nto make mention of two Lahore High Court Judgments (i) PLD 1962 Lah. 405 (F.B.)\r\nin which leading judgment was. delivered by one the most celebrated Judges of\r\nPakistan Judiciary Mr. Justice C.J. Kayani, and it was held that the order of\r\ncancellation of F.I.R. under section 173, Cr.P.C. is an adminstrative order and\r\ntherefore not amenable to revision under section 439, Cr.P.C., by higher\r\nCourts. In the other case (ii) PLD 1968 Lah. 537, it was held that:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:bold\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;There is no doubt in my mind that such\r\nan order is a judicial order and is open to review by this Count. The law at\r\nthe same time provides remedy to the petitioner to file a complaint under\r\nsection 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code if he so likes. I agree with Mirza\r\nGhulam Mujaddid, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, that\r\nthe order passed by the Magistrate should not be interfered in revision when a\r\nremedy is open to the petitioner by way of complaint:\u0027\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003eIn both the cases, however, it was decided that, though based on\r\ndifferent reasons, the High Court must not interefere in their Revisional\r\nJurisdictions under section 439, Cr.P.C., against the orders passed by the\r\nMagistrates under section 173, Cr.P.C. cancelling the F.I.R. and discharging\r\nthe accused named therein. Faced with such a conflicting judicial view of the\r\nmatter for over a very long period of about a century, the Supreme Court of\r\nPakistan put the controversy at rest by deciding once and for all that the order\r\nso made by the Magistrate on the basis of approving the Police Final Report\r\ncancelling the F.I.R., is an administrative order arid final for the purposes\r\nof judicial scrutiny, as it is open to the complainant/informer, if aggrieved\r\nor dissatisfied by such disposal of his F.I.R., to take the same F.I.R. direct\r\nto the same Magistrate for adjudication, in the following words:\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;Though a \u0026#8209;Magistrate in cancelling a registered cirminal case\r\nis required to act judicially in that he has to act fairly, justly and honsetly\r\na duty common to the exercise of all state power, there is no `lis\u0027 before him,\r\nthere  is no duty to hear the parties, there is no decision given, no finality\r\nor irrevocability attaching to the order. The party is left free to institute a\r\ncomplaint on the .same facts, and a Magistrate does not even after passing such\r\nan order render himself functus officio. On the contrary he is quite competent\r\nto entertain and deal with such a complaint on material presented to him. These\r\npecularities establish beyond any doubt that in so concurring with a report\r\nsubmitted under section 173, Cr.P.C. he does not function as a Criminal Court.\r\nFor that reason his. order is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction under\r\nsections 435 to 439, Cr.P.C. This appeal, is therefore, allowed and the\r\nimpugned order of the High Court inset aside, as one without jurisdiction:\u0027\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003eThe basic purpose of legislating. criminal laws in any society is to\r\nprevent `crime\u0027 and punish the `offender\u0027. In that spirit complete liberty is\r\nprovided to every person to report crime to the Police in Chapter XIV of\r\nCr.P.C. After the supply of such information relating to the commission of a\r\ncognizable offence by any member of the public, who has gained knowledge in any\r\nmanner, the further pursuit of the matter by the Police becomes an activity and\r\nresponsibility of the State. To secure the due `process of law\u0027 from abuse by\r\nunscrupulous persons, the Legislature has enacted a complete Chapter X covering\r\nsections 172 to 190 in the Pakistan Penal Code providing for punishment of\r\n`contempt of the lawful authority of the public servants\u0027. The law relating to\r\ncancellation of F.I.R. by the Final Report of the Police under section 173,\r\nCr.P.C., having thus been finally laid by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid\r\ncase, floods of light can now be thrown on reading and understanding of section\r\n182, P.P.C. which punishes for `false information with intent to cause public\r\nservant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person\u0027.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003eSection 182, P.P.C. has been drafted with caution followed by\r\nillustrations to make the intention of the legislature abundantly clear. The\r\nessential ingredients of the offence punishable under this section are: (i)\r\nthat the information must be given to a `public servant\u0027 as defined in section\r\n21 of P.P.C. In the instant case Police is public servant to whom information\r\nis given under section 154, Cr.P.C., (ii) secondly the information so given\r\nmust be false within the knowledge and belief of the informer, (iii) thirdly a\r\nperson who lays an information before the Police is entitled to have his case\r\ndetermined by the Court before he is called upon to answer the charge of laying\r\na false information. This aspect has now been finally settled by the Supreme\r\nCourt in their judgment cited above, (iv) fourthly the intention of giving such\r\nfalse information must be to wrongfully put the State machinery into operation\r\neither causing the public servant to do what he must not do or not to do what\r\nhe must do if the true state of facts respecting which such information is\r\ngiven were known to him, or otherwise the intention of the informer be to use\r\nthe lawful power/authority of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of\r\nany other person. Any one of these two demands is sufficient to constitute the\r\noffence. Thus where a false charge is made by person against another person, he\r\nis liable to punishment even if his object in doing so may be to protect\r\nhimself rather than to injure that other person.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003eAfter the pronouncement of the Supreme Court judgment cited above, it\r\nbecomes per se clear that once the informer/complaintant, in spite of his\r\nF.I.R. under section 154, Cr.P.C., having been found false and accordingly\r\ncancelled by the Police Final Report under section 173, Cr.P.C. with the\r\nsanction and approval of the Magistrate; is not aggrieved and does not exercise\r\nhis right of filing the same complaint before the same Magistrate for\r\nadjudication to prove truth of the information, the falsity attached to his\r\nF.I.R. becomes final and the informer/complainant becomes liable to prosecution\r\nand punishment under section 182, P.P.C.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003eThe necessary corollary to the effect of the Supreme Court judgment is\r\nthat the prosecution in such a case does not have to prove the falsity of the\r\nF.I.R. afresh in proceedings under section 182, P.P.C., but confine its duty to\r\nestablish the aforesaid three out of four ingredients only, that is, (i) that\r\nthe F.I.R. was made by the accused himself to the Police, (ii) that the\r\ninformation given was false within the knowledge and belief of the accused,\r\n(iii)(a) that the information was given with the intention of invoking the\r\njurisdiction of the Police so as to make the Police do what it must not have\r\ndone or omit to do what it must have done, had the true facts of the case\r\nrespecting which such information is given were known to it; or in the\r\nallternative (b) to use the lawful power of the Police to cause injury or\r\nannoyance of any other person. In other words the Courts, either at the stage\r\nof trial, or appeal or revision under section 182, P.P.C. shall not be called\r\nupon or required to give a verdict on the `falsity\u0027 of the F.I.R., which\r\nalready stood established under section 173, Cr.P.C.\u0027\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/body\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/html\u003e\r\n"