"\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 11\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Originator content=\"Microsoft Word 11\"\u003e\r\n\u003clink rel=File-List href=\"2015J15_files/filelist.xml\"\u003e\r\n\u003ctitle\u003eCANCELLATION OF CASE\u003c/title\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003co:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Author\u003eOratier\u003c/o:Author\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Template\u003eNormal\u003c/o:Template\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastAuthor\u003eOratier\u003c/o:LastAuthor\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Revision\u003e2\u003c/o:Revision\u003e\r\n  \u003co:TotalTime\u003e0\u003c/o:TotalTime\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Created\u003e2015-10-28T08:06:00Z\u003c/o:Created\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastSaved\u003e2015-10-28T08:06:00Z\u003c/o:LastSaved\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Pages\u003e1\u003c/o:Pages\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Words\u003e4858\u003c/o:Words\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Characters\u003e27697\u003c/o:Characters\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Company\u003eOratier\u003c/o:Company\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Lines\u003e230\u003c/o:Lines\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Paragraphs\u003e64\u003c/o:Paragraphs\u003e\r\n  \u003co:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e32491\u003c/o:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Version\u003e11.5606\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:DoNotHyphenateCaps/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:PunctuationKerning/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e6 pt\u003c/w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing\u003e6 pt\u003c/w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery\u003e0\u003c/w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e3\u003c/w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:UseMarginsForDrawingGridOrigin/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:ValidateAgainstSchemas\u003efalse\u003c/w:ValidateAgainstSchemas\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003efalse\u003c/w:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:IgnoreMixedContent\u003efalse\u003c/w:IgnoreMixedContent\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003efalse\u003c/w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotUnderlineInvalidXML/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotShadeFormData/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:Compatibility\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:FootnoteLayoutLikeWW8/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:ShapeLayoutLikeWW8/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:AlignTablesRowByRow/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:ForgetLastTabAlignment/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:LayoutRawTableWidth/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:LayoutTableRowsApart/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:UseWord97LineBreakingRules/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:SelectEntireFieldWithStartOrEnd/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:UseWord2002TableStyleRules/\u003e\r\n  \u003c/w:Compatibility\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:BrowserLevel\u003eMicrosoftInternetExplorer4\u003c/w:BrowserLevel\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:WordDocument\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003cw:LatentStyles DefLockedState=\"false\" LatentStyleCount=\"156\"\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:LatentStyles\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n\u003c!--\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n p.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\n /* Page Definitions */\r\n @page\r\n\t{mso-page-border-surround-header:no;\r\n\tmso-page-border-surround-footer:no;}\r\n@page Section1\r\n\t{size:8.5in 11.0in;\r\n\tmargin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;\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\u003c!--[if gte mso 10]\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n table.MsoNormalTable\r\n\t{mso-style-name:\"Table Normal\";\r\n\tmso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;\r\n\tmso-tstyle-colband-size:0;\r\n\tmso-style-noshow:yes;\r\n\tmso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\r\n\tmso-para-margin:0in;\r\n\tmso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:10.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-ansi-language:#0400;\r\n\tmso-fareast-language:#0400;\r\n\tmso-bidi-language:#0400;}\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\u003c![endif]--\u003e\r\n\u003c/head\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cbody lang=EN-US style=\u0027tab-interval:.5in;text-justify-trim:punctuation\u0027\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=Section1\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eCANCELLATION OF CASE\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eBy\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eKhadim Hussain Malik\u003ci\u003e\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(Rtd.) District and\r\nSessions Judge,\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eLahore\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe Criminal Procedure Code does not\r\nprovide in specific terms for the cancellation of a case. However, this\r\nquestion was considered and decided by the Full Bench of Lahore High Court in\r\nthe case of Wazir v. State\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe facts of the case are that the police\r\nhad presented an incomplete challan to the Magistrate for the purpose of trial.\r\nBefore the Magistrate took any action on the challan the police sent another\r\nreport recommending \u0026quot;discharge\u0026quot; of the accused. Acting on the\r\nsubsequent report the Magistrate proceeded to discharge the accused. As there\r\nwas only one accused the discharge order in fact amounted to cancellation of\r\nthe case.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn High Court, the question arose:-\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u003ci\u003eWhether\r\nafter the police has sent a report under section 173 for the trial of a case and\r\nbefore any steps have been taken towards the commencement of the trial, the\r\nMagistrate can, on a second report by the police recommending cancellation,\r\naccept the second recommendation, and not proceed with the trial of the first\r\nchallan?\u0026quot;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:4.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThere was an earlier decision by a\r\nDivision Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore in the case of Muhammad Nawaz v.\r\nThe Crown involving similar proposition, wherein, it was observed that after\r\nreceipt of \u003ci\u003echallan\u003c/i\u003e the Court cannot discharge an accused by invoking the\r\nprovisions of subsection (3) of section 173, Cr.P.C. without hearing of\r\nprosecution evidence; that this provision was applicable only if an accused had\r\nbeen released by the Police on his own bond under section 169, Cr.P.C.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:4.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn view of that judgment, Hon\u0027ble Mr. Justice\r\nM.R. Kayani C J referred the case to a Full Bench for answering the following\r\nspecific propositions:--\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:4.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(i)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003eWhether\r\nwhen a challan is received by a Magistrate, he takes cognizance of the case?\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:4.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(ii)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eWhether\r\nin the event of a second report by the police recommending cancellation of the\r\ncase, he can accept the report before he has started with the trial, in\r\npursuance of the first challan?\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:4.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe Full Bench held that:-\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:4.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u0026quot;It\r\nwould generally be a question of fact whether at a certain stage a Magistrate\r\nhas taken cognizance of the case when a police challan has been presented\r\nbefore him. The police report by itself, when received by the Magistrate, does\r\nnot constitute the taking of cognizance, and it is reasonable to expect that\r\nsomething more will be done to show that the Magistrate intends to start the\r\nproceedings. In the case of an incomplete challan, as in this case, although\r\nthe Magistrate could start the trial, (but) if he keeps it waiting until\r\nanother report should come or until whatever is wanting should be made he\r\nclearly does not take cognizance of the offence. If, therefore, the case is at\r\nthat stage and a second report is received, showing that no offence is\r\ncommitted, the Magistrate can accept the report and cancel the case\u0026quot;.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eOn the basis of Muhammad Nawaz\u0027s case\r\n(supra) the counsel for the respondent argued that cancellation could not be\r\nmade under subsection (3) of section 173, Cr.P.C. and that apart from that\r\nsub-section there was no other provision which enabled a Magistrate to cancel a\r\ncase. He further contended that the said subsection was applicable only to a\r\ncase where the accused had been released on his own bond under section 169,\r\nCr.P.C. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe Full Bench disagreed with this\r\ncontention and concluded that the cancellation power is inherent in section\r\n173, Cr.P.C. read with section 190, Cr.P.C. though the language of subsection\r\n(3) of section 173 does not directly apply to the case. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe Full Bench judgment of Lahore High\r\nCourt in Wazir v. State has been approved by Hon\u0027ble Supreme Court in Bahadur\r\nv. State wherein it was observed that \u0026quot;Neither section 173, Cr.P.C. nor\r\nany other provision of the Criminal Procedure Code specifically deals with the\r\nquestion of cancellation of registered criminal case. In the Full Bench\r\ndecision Wazir v. State such a power was found to be \u0026quot;inherent in section\r\n173 read with section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure though the language\r\nof subsection (3) does not specifically apply to the case\u0026quot;  \u0026quot;. The\r\nWazir case is consistently being followed by Superior Courts.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eII.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003ePROCEDURE\r\nFOR SUBMISSION OF REPORT FOR CANCELLATION OF FIR\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eRule 24.7 of Police Rules, 1934 Vol.III,\r\nChapter XXIV prescribes the procedure for submitting a report for cancellation\r\nof FIR to the Magistrate, \u0026quot;empowered to take cognizance of the offence on\r\na police report and to try the accused or send him for trial\u0026quot;. It reads as\r\nunder:-\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;24.7. Unless the investigation of\r\na case is transferred to another police station or district, no first\r\ninformation report can be cancelled without the orders of a Magistrate of a 1st\r\nClass. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eWhen information or other intelligence is\r\nrecorded under section 154, Cr.P.C., and, after investigation, is found to be\r\nmaliciously false or false owing to mistake of law or fact or to be\r\nnon-cognizable or matter for a civil suit the Superintendent shall send the\r\nfirst information report and any other papers on record in the case with the\r\nfinal report to a Magistrate having jurisdiction, and being a Magistrate of the\r\nfirst class, for order of cancellation.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eOn receipt of such an order the officer\r\nin charge of the police station shall cancel the first information report by\r\ndrawing a red line across the page, noting the name of the Magistrate\r\ncancelling the case with number and date of order. He shall then return the\r\noriginal order to the Superintendent\u0027s Office to be filed with the record of\r\nthe case. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e24.8.---(1) Each Superintendent shall\r\nmaintain a register of cognizable offences in Form 24.8(1), styled the English\r\nRegister of Cognizable Offences.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe serial number in column one shall\r\ncommence and end with the calendar year. Cases cancelled or transferred shall\r\nbe erased by ruling a red line through them, and shall, at the end of the year,\r\nbe deducted from the total.\u0026quot; \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe only situation where a move for\r\ncancellation of a registered case can be made are, therefore, those in which\r\nthe information is found to be:-\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003ea.\r\nmaliciously false,\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eb.\r\nfalse owing to mistake of law,\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003ec.\r\nfalse owing to mistake of fact or\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003ed.\r\noffence reported is found to be non-cognizable or\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003ee.\r\nmatter fit for a civil suit.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eIII.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eORDER\r\nOR CANCELLATION WHEN TO BE PASSED AND BY WHOM\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eNo Magistrate of the 2nd and 3rd Class is\r\ncompetent to make such an order, but any Magistrate of the 1st class may do so.\r\nSuch an order should only be made at the time of dealing with the Police\r\nReports. No application from the Police for a direction of this Character\r\nshould be entertained if made otherwise than in the final report submitted\r\nunder section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But the Magistrate of the\r\n1st, 2nd or 3rd class, may, of his \u003ci\u003eown motion,\u003c/i\u003e in the course of trying\r\nany case reported by the Police as congnizable, pass such an order at any stage\r\nof the proceedings, before or at the time of delivering judgment, intimation of\r\nthe order being given to the police.\u003csup\u003e \u003c/sup\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eIV.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eCANCELLATION\r\nOF CASE EXCLUSIVELY TRIABLE BY COURT OF SESSION\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eOnly Magistrate, empowered to take\r\ncognizance of offence and to try the accused or send him for trial is competent\r\nto pass cancellation order, even in respect of a case exclusively triable by\r\nCourt of Session. Sessions Judge does not enjoy such power.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn the case Bashir Ahmad v. Allaqa\r\nMagistrate Jaranwala the question arose whether with the various amendments\r\nbrought about in Cr.P.C. by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, a Magistrate was\r\ncompetent to discharge an accused involved in a murder case or to cancel a case\r\nexclusively triable by Sessions Court. The High Court concluded that even in\r\ncase exclusively triable by a Court of Session a Magistrate\u0027s powers to\r\ndischarge an accused or to cancel a case remained unaffected.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn the case of Mehdi Hussain Shah v.\r\nKhizar Hayat, Bashir\u0027s case (supra) was relied upon. It was reiterated that\r\n\u0026quot;amendment introduced by Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 had not affected the\r\npowers of the Magistrate under section 173(3) to cancel a case triable by Court\r\nof Session.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn Syed Hamid Muqeem Bokhari v. State the\r\ncontention that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass cancellation order\r\nbecause the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge was repelled and\r\nit was held that the Magistrate was not merely a post office and could pass\r\nsuch order in cases which he had to send up to the Court of Session for holding\r\ntrial. Similarly in Awal Khan v. Supdt. of Police it was affirmed that the\r\nMagistrate has full authority and jurisdiction to agree with the police report\r\nrecommending cancellation of a case exclusively triable by Sessions Court.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn the case of Soofi Abdul Qadir v. State\r\nan SDM, who was an Executive Magistrate and after the separation of judiciary\r\nfrom the executive had been authorized to try only such offences as fell in\r\nChapters VIII, X, XIII and XIV, P.P.C., concurred with the Police Report\r\nrecommending cancellation of the case involving offences triable by Court of\r\nSession and disposed of the FIR as cancelled case. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn this background it was held that since\r\nthe Magistrate was not vested with the Jurisdiction to take cognizance of the\r\noffences triable by Court of Session, he while cancelling the FIR on police\r\nreport had acted without jurisdiction. The order passed by him being \u003ci\u003ecoram\r\nnon judice\u003c/i\u003e was accordingly quashed.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIt was further observed that, \u0026quot;There\r\ncan be no cavil with the authority of the investigating officer to dispose of a\r\nfirst information report as cancelled class when he arrives at the conclusion\r\nthat the same is false, founded on a mistake of fact or law, or a dispute of civil\r\nnature; but the order of cancellation of FIR must be obtained from a Magistrate\r\ncompetent to take cognizance of the offence and to try the case or to send the\r\nmatter for trial to a superior court\u0026quot;.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eAccording to the facts of the case of\r\nSakhawat Ali v. State the petitioner, a Police Officer lodged an FIR against\r\nthe accused. After submission of challan, the Area Magistrate took cognizance\r\nof the offence as well as of the case and commenced the trial. Meanwhile, the\r\nmother of the accused submitted an application against the petitioner to the\r\nhigher police authorities maintaining that the petitioner had falsely\r\nimplicated her son. The allegations were found correct, resultantly the\r\npetitioner was awarded punishment of reduction in rank. A cancellation report was\r\nalso submitted before the Area Magistrate with which, however, he did not\r\nagree.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eSubsequently the mother of the accused\r\nsubmitted an application to the Sessions Judge who ordered the cancellation of\r\nFIR.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe High Court set aside the order\r\nholding that the power of cancellation is available only to a Magistrate and\r\nnot to a Sessions Judge. It was further observed that cancellation of an FIR is\r\nnot permissible after taking of cognizance of the offence and of the case by\r\nthe Trial Court.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eAs per facts of the case of Akhtar Ali\r\nKhan v. State, the cancellation report submitted to the Magistrate was sent by\r\nhim to the Sessions Judge, for the reason that the case was exclusively triable\r\nby the Sessions Court. The Sessions Judge agreed with the report. The cancellation\r\norder passed by the Sessions Judge was set aside by the High Court, holding\r\nthat it was the exclusive authority of the Judicial Magistrate to pass order\r\nunder section 173(3). Section 173 does not provide for sending the report under\r\nsection 173 to the Sessions Judge. Although provision of section 190, Cr.P.C.\r\nprovides for sending the case to Sessions Court where the offences are\r\nexclusively triable by that court but the report under section 173 that the\r\ncase is found false and unsustainable does not come within its\r\npurview  .\u0026quot;. \u0026quot;The provision requires the sending of the case to the\r\nCourt of Session for trial alone and that too after the Magistrate takes\r\ncognizance under subsection (1) of an offence triable exclusively by Court of\r\nSession. These provisions do not indicate any role of the Sessions Judge,\r\ntherefore, the order passed by him was without jurisdiction and \u003ci\u003eCoram non\r\nJudice\u003c/i\u003e......\u0026quot;.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIt was further observed that \u0026quot;the\r\norder of the Judicial Magistrate indicates that he sent the report to the Sessions\r\nJudge keeping in view the pronouncement in the case Sufi Abdul Qadir (supra).\r\nPerusal of that judgment shows that the Magistrate failed to conceive the\r\njudgment in its true perspective. The judgment made it clear that the\r\ninvestigation officer has to submit the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. to\r\nthe Magistrate competent to take the cognizance of the offence and to try the\r\ncase or to send it for trial to the superior court. That after the separation\r\nof Judiciary from the Executive, SDM being an executive Magistrate was not\r\nvested with the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence triable by\r\nSessions Court and send the case for trial. Therefore, the order passed by him\r\nin respect of the offence triable by the Court of Session was without jurisdiction.\r\nThere was no room for confusion about competence of Judicial Magistrate\r\nconcerned for taking cognizance of offences and passing order on the report\r\nunder section 173, Cr.P.C\u0026quot;.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eCONTRA\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn the case of Rana Muhammad Farooq v.\r\nAftab Hussain, the police after investigation submitted report before the\r\nconcerned Magistrate for disposal of case under \u0026quot;Cancel\u0027 case. After\r\nhearing the parties, the concerned Magistrate dissented with the report of\r\nInvestigation Officer and directed him to submit challan under section 173,\r\nCr.P.C. The order was challenged in High Court. Relying on Soofi Abdul Qadir\u0027s\r\ncase (Supra) it was held that, as the case was ordinarily triable by Sessions\r\nCourt, the Magistrate rightly refused to cancel the registered case as he was\r\nnot supposed to take cognizance of the matter.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn Rasool Bakhsh Sheikh v. State, after\r\ninvestigation, report under section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted by the police\r\nrequesting \u0027C\u0027 class i.e. case being neither true nor maliciously false but\r\nnon-cognizable. On this the Judicial Magistrate wrote \u0027allowed\u0027. Subsequently,\r\non the directions of the High Court, the Judicial Magistrate passed a detailed\r\norder allowing the application. The High Court mainly relying on Soofi Abdul\r\nQadir\u0027s case held that the said Magistrate could not order cancellation of an\r\nFIR which is in respect of offences triable by a Court of Session.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn re Yasir Khan v. Imtiaz, it has been\r\nobserved that \u0026quot;in case the police and even the referring Magistrate \u003cb\u003e\u003ci\u003ehave\r\nopined for the cancellation of case\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/b\u003e, the sessions, after taking\r\ncognizance of the case under section 193, Cr.P.C. would have authority to carry\r\nout another inquiry without recording of evidence, by reviewing the evidence\r\ncollected by the police and pass an order in writing qua the bond and sureties furnished\r\nby the accused and the \u003cb\u003e\u003ci\u003efate of the case\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/b\u003e.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn the case of Ibrahim Khan v. State an\r\nFIR was registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. On conclusion of investigation\r\nthe police submitted charge sheet against the accused which was disposed of by\r\nthe Magistrate in \u0027C\u0027 class. It was held that \u0026quot;..in the changed\r\ncircumstances and in view of amendment under section 190, Cr.P.C. the\r\nMagistrate cannot determine the nature of offence as to whether or not the case\r\nis one triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the Magistrate was not\r\ncompetent to dispose of a Sessions case, while cancelling the FIR or Police\r\nreport, held virtually acted without jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate may\r\ndraw the inference and conclusion and then transmit the same to the Sessions Court\r\nas it was for that competent Court to decide whether cognizance is to be taken\r\nor not, and made an administrative determination, without going in further\r\ndetail as to the merits and demerits of the case.\u0026quot;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eV.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003eNATURE\r\nOF CANCELLATION ORDER\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn the famous case of Bahadur v. State\r\n(supra) leave to appeal was granted to examine whether a Magistrate while\r\ncancelling a criminal case acts as a court. The Police after investigation of\r\nthe case submitted a report showing that no case was made out against the accused\r\nand sought cancellation of the case. The Illaqa Magistrate through a detailed\r\norder agreed with the police report.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eOn the revision petition filed by the\r\ncomplainant High Court held that the Magistrate in cancelling a case acts\r\njudicially as a court and for that reason the order was revisable. The order of\r\nthe Magistrate was set aside and the case was remitted to him to re-examine the\r\nquestion of guilt of the accused.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe Supreme Court while deciding the\r\nappeal observed that the specific question of law under consideration is not\r\nfree from controversy. That in a number of cases it was held that cancellation\r\nof case is a judicial act of the court. According to the other view a\r\nMagistrate while cancelling a case does not act as a court nor such an order is\r\nrevisable. List of cases representing both the views is mentioned at page 65 of\r\nthe judgment.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:4.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIt was in this backgroud that the\r\nfollowing observations have been made in the judgment:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:4.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(a) CHARACTERISTICS OF JUDICIAL\r\nFUNCTIONS\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:7.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe primary characteristics of \u0027pure\u0027\r\njudicial function, by whomsoever exercised, are:--\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e*\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\npower to hear and determine a controversy.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e*\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\npower to make a binding decision (sometimes subject to appeal) which may affect\r\nthe person or property or other rights of the parties involved in the dispute. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(b)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eCHARACTERISTICS\r\nOF ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:7.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eAdministrative functions, on the other\r\nhand, consist of those activities which are directed towards the regulation and\r\nsupervision of public affairs and the initiation and maintenance of the public\r\nservices. \u003cb\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(c)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eDUTIES\r\nOF MAGISTRATE UNDER CR.P.C.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:7.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eUnder the Criminal Procedure Code a\r\nMagistrate is entrusted with diverse duties and in discharging the same does\r\nnot always function as a Court, conduct judicial proceedings or is amenable to\r\nthe revisional jurisdiction. Some of his powers and duties under the Code are\r\nadministrative, executive or ministerial and he discharges these duties not as\r\na Court but as a persona designata. \u003cb\u003e\u003ci\u003eMere name or designation of \u003c/i\u003e\u003c/b\u003ea\r\nMagistrate is not decisive of the question because \u003cb\u003e\u0026quot;judges often\r\nadminister and administrators often Judge\u0026quot;.\u003c/b\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(d)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eCANCELLATION\r\nOF CASE----DOES NOT FUNCTION AS A CRIMINAL COURT\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:7.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;Though a Magistrate in cancelling a\r\nregistered criminal case is required to act judicially in that he has to act\r\nfairly, justly and honestly, a duty common to the exercise of all state\r\npower\u0026quot;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e*\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003ethere\r\nis no lis before him,\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e*\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003ethere\r\nis no duty to hear the parties,\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e*\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003ethere\r\nis no decision given,\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e*\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eno\r\nfinality or irrevocability attaching to the order. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:7.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(e)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eREMEDY\r\nFOR PARTY - FILING OF COMPLAINT\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:7.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe party is left free to institute a\r\ncomplaint on the same facts, and the same Magistrate does not even after\r\npassing such an order render himself \u003ci\u003efunctus\u003c/i\u003e \u003ci\u003eofficio\u003c/i\u003e. On the\r\ncontrary he is quite competent to entertain and deal with such a complaint on\r\nmaterial presented to him. These peculiarities establish beyond any doubt that\r\nin so concurring with a report submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C.\u0026quot; he\r\ndoes not function as a Criminal Court. For that reason his order is \u003cb\u003enot\r\namenable to revisional jurisdiction under sections 435 to 439, Cr.P.C.\u0026quot;\u003c/b\u003e\u003ci\u003e\r\n\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cu\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eCONTRA\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:\r\n.2pt\u0027\u003eIn the case of Bakht Baidar Ali Shah v. The State it has been observed\r\nthat \u0026quot;the term, \u0027Magistrate\u0027 has been defined under clause (ma) of\r\nsubsection (1) of section 4 of Cr.P.C. inserted vide Ordinance XVII of 2001\r\nwith effect from 14-8-2001. It means a Judicial Magistrate and includes a\r\nSpecial Judicial Magistrate appointed under sections 12 and 14 of the Code. The\r\ninsertion of the above definition was made in the process of separation of\r\nJudiciary from the Executive in terms of Article 175(3) of the Constitution.\r\nBefore separation of the judiciary from the executive, Magistrates used to try\r\ncriminal cases as part of the executive. In that arrangement an order passed by\r\nan Executive Magistrate before taking cognizance under section 190, Cr.P.C. was\r\nconsidered as administrative and not a judicial order not revisable under\r\nsections 435 and 439.It was so observed in the case of Bahadur and another v.\r\nThe State and another (PLD 1985 SC 62). However, consequent opon the separation\r\nof Judiciary from the Executive and in view of the definition \u0027Magistrate\u0027 as\r\nquoted above, the situation now has changed. In the changed state of affairs\r\nwith effect from 14-8-2001, an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate is to be\r\nconsidered a judicial act and thus revisable under sections 435 and 439,\r\nCr.P.C\u0026quot;.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eVI.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eNO\r\nCANCELLATION OF CASE AFTER TAKING OF COGNIZANCE\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eCancellation of the case under section\r\n173, Cr.P.C. is not permissible after the cognizance has been taken but it\r\ncould have been done before that stage.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eWhen a Court takes cognizance of an\r\noffence on receipt of incomplete or complete challan the prosecution is left\r\nwith two courses only. One to produce evidence in court and allow the trial\r\njudge to decide the case on merits according to law; and two to seek withdrawal\r\nof the case under section 494, Cr.P.C.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eA Magistrate once having taken cognizance\r\nof the matter and then having sent up the case to the Court of Session, had no\r\nbusiness either in law or in propriety to then discharge the accused persons\r\n(or for that matter to cancel the case). Such an action on the part of the\r\nMagistrate amounts to pre-empting the exercise of jurisdiction by a Superior\r\nCourt i.e. the Court of Session. The conduct of the Magistrate, besides having\r\nhighly improper is even contemptuous. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eVII.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003eTAKING\r\nOF COGNIZANCE \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(i)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cu\u003eConnotation\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\nword \u0026quot;Cognizance\u0026quot; is a term of art. It implies application of\r\njudicial mind for the purpose of finding out whether the offence has been\r\ncommitted or not . The word \u0026quot;cognizance\u0026quot; has not been defined in\r\nCr.P.C. Cognizance is application of mind by the Court on the facts and\r\ncircumstances of the case. A court taking cognizance of offence has to\r\nconsider:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(i)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003eWhether\r\noffence is committed in its territorial jurisdiction.?\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(ii)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eWho\r\nare persons responsible for the commission of offence?\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(iii)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eWhether\r\nin court\u0027s opinion sufficient grounds are existing for proceeding with the\r\ntrial? \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eTaking cognizance does not involve any\r\nformal action or indeed actions of any kind. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eBefore it can be said that any Magistrate\r\nhas taken cognizance of any offence under section 190 he must have done so for\r\nthe purpose of proceeding in a particular way. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eCognizance is a word of indefinite import\r\nand perhaps not always used exactly in the same sense.\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eIt is incapable of precise and allusive\r\ndefinition as may cover all the possible context and situations in which this term\r\ncan be used. The term taking cognizance is co-related to the matter or case in\r\nhand. Generally speaking it is matter of fact depending upon the nature of the\r\nproceeding. An accused may be produced before a Magistrate under section 167,\r\nCr.P.C. for obtaining remand. He is taking cognizance of the matter or the case\r\nfor the purpose of allowing remand or otherwise, but not for taking cognizance\r\nof the matter or case for the purpose of commencing or holding a trial. An\r\napplication may be made before a Magistrate for the superdari of the case property\r\npending the disposal of the case. The Magistrate will be taking cognizance of\r\nthe application for the purpose of dealing with superdari and yet not taking\r\ncognizance of the case for the purpose of trial. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eTaking cognizance\r\nof a case by a court is not synonymous with the commencement of trial which\r\ntakes place on framing of charge against the accused. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(ii)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cu\u003eOccurrence\r\nof Cognizance \u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIt\r\nwould generally be a question of fact whether at a particular stage a\r\nMagistrate has taken cognizance of the case, when a police challan has been\r\npresented before him. The police reported by itself, when received by the\r\nMagistrate, does not constitute the taking of cognizance, and it is reasonable\r\nto expect that something more will be done to show that the Magistrate intends\r\nto start the proceedings. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eCognizance\r\noccurs as soon as a Magistrate as such applies his mind to the suspected\r\ncircumstances of an offence. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(iii)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cu\u003eTaking\r\nof Cognizance a Judicial Function\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eTaking\r\nof cognizance of offence under section 190(1), Cr.P.C. and issue of process\r\nunder section 204, Cr.P.C. are judicial functions and require a judicial\r\napproach.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eVIII.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e            \u003c/span\u003e\r\nNO RE-INVESTIGATION AFTER CANCELLATION OF CASE\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn a situation where the order of the\r\nMagistrate concurring with the recommendation of the police supervenes, the\r\nauthority to re-investigate does not exist because there is no cognizable case\r\nto be investigated. If on the report and the material already collected a\r\ndifferent view is formed by the same or succeeding officer of the police of\r\nappropriate grade so as to prompt him to require reconsideration of the earlier\r\nrecommendation including the order of the Magistrate he should through the same\r\nchannel approach the Magistrate and have his concurrence to the recall of the\r\norder cancelling the case as non-cognizable or no case at all. That being an\r\nadministrative order can certainly be recalled in a bona fide manner and for\r\nsufficient reasons.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe police has the option of applying\r\nagain to the Magistrate for recalling the order of cancellation which the\r\nMagistrate could have, the order being administrative in character, but unless\r\nthey obtain such an order from the Magistrate the investigation or the\r\nsubsequent challan in the Court has no sanction of law behind it. The police\r\nmay have additional information with regard to the commission of offence but\r\nthey cannot proceed unless they go back to the Magistrate recalling the order\r\nof cancellation.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eWhere the whole case is cancelled the\r\nprincipal that the police shall not reopen the case for fresh investigation,\r\nwithout formally calling for the revocation of the Magistrate\u0027s order applies.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1in;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eIX.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eDIFFERENCE\r\nBETWEEN CANCELLATION OF CASE AND DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:.1in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eTerms\r\n\u0026quot;discharge\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;cancellation\u0026quot; are not synonymous and\r\ncannot be amalgamated because they have different connotations. Where the case\r\nis cancelled by a competent Court, the FIR ceases to exist, but where the\r\naccused is discharged the FIR remains intact and the discharge order relates\r\nonly to that particular accused. If the case was filed being untraceable the\r\nFIR remains in field and the matter alive. \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eApparently, there seems to be some\r\nmisunderstanding regarding the cancellation of the case against the accused and\r\nthe discharge of an accused from the case. To resolve this confusion, the two\r\naspects of the case are to be considered separately because there is a nice\r\ndistinction between the interpretation of the two. Cancellation of the case\r\nwould mean the cancellation of the FIR, while in the case of discharge of the\r\naccused, the FIR remains intact. To further elaborate this proposition, one can\r\nsay that where a sole accused or all accused of a case named in the FIR are\r\ndischarged from their bail bonds and the case against them is cancelled by the\r\nMagistrate on report of the police, the same will amount to the cancellation of\r\nthe FIR and there would be no lis pending against the accused thus discharged,\r\nbut where amongst others, some of the accused are got discharged from the\r\nMagistrate due to non-availability of the evidence, or due to some other genuine\r\nreasons to be specifically mentioned in the discharge report, in such\r\neventuality, the FIR remains intact and further investigation could be made to\r\ncollect the evidence against all the accused or some of them so as to trace out\r\nthe real culprits. If the case is cancelled by the Magistrate on receipt of the\r\nreport by the police, then re-investigation cannot be made without permission\r\nof the Magistrate. In case of discharge of the accused, then, of course, the\r\ninvestigating agency even without getting permission from the Magistrate can\r\nre-investigate the matter.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eX\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003ePOWER\r\nOF HIGH COURT TO INVOKE JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 561-A, Cr.P.C.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn the case of Bahadar v. State the\r\nSupreme Court held that as the Magistrate while concurring with the Police\r\nReport submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C. and cancelling a criminal case does\r\nnot function as a criminal court, the order of cancellation of a criminal case\r\nis not amenable to revisional jurisdiction of High Court under sections 435 to\r\n439, Cr.P.C.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eHowever, In Arif Ali Khan v. State, the\r\nSupreme Court held that though sections 435 to 439, Cr.P.C. cannot be pressed\r\ninto service by High Court in a case in which a Magistrate concurs with the\r\nreport of an investigating officer under section 173, Cr.P.C., but the High\r\nCourt can invoke aid of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. It was observed that where the\r\ncourt reaches a positive conclusion in a case that a particular order passed by\r\nthe subordinate court amounted to abuse of process of court, it does not mean\r\nthat it would be powerless to rectify the injustice. The High Court, therefore,\r\nwould be justified in setting aside the order of the Magistrate under section\r\n561-A, Cr.P.C.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe above view was reiterated by the\r\nSupreme Court in Muhammad Sharif v. State and followed in the case of Hassan\r\nAhmad v. Mst. Irshad Bibi.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eXI.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eORDER\r\nHELD ILLEGAL BEING \u0026quot;NOT A SPEAKING ORDER\u0026quot;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e(i)\r\nIn the case of Mushtaq Raj v. Magistrate 1st Class, the Magistrate passed the\r\nfollowing order:-\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;Police\r\nReport perused. As requested by Police case is cancelled.\u0026quot;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe High Court in exercise of its powers\r\nunder section 561-A, Cr.P.C. declared the order to be without lawful authority\r\nand of no legal effect, observing that the Magistrate while discharging his\r\nadministrative duties has to act fairly, justly and honestly. The Magistrate,\r\nhowever, acted arbitrarily and in a mechanical manner; that he did not apply\r\nhis conscious mind to the facts of case and did not give any reason in support\r\nof his order. While concurring with the investigation conducted by Police it\r\nappears that he has not even examined the FIR and the police file as is\r\napparent from the impugned order.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e(ii)\r\nSimilarly in the case of Nazir Ahmad v. Illaqa Magistrate the Magistrate passed\r\nan order to the effect:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;Cancellation\r\nReport by Police agreed to file be consigned.\u0026quot;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e(iii)\r\nIn another case titled Muhammad Askar v. Arshad the Magistrate cancelled the\r\nFIR passing a similar following order:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;Cancelled\r\nas per request of the local Police.\u0026quot;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe orders in both the aforementioned\r\ncases were set aside by the respective High Courts on almost similar grounds as\r\nmentioned in the case of Mushtaq Raj (supra).\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eXI.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eGUIDELINES\r\nFOR MAGISTRATES\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;..........While\r\nexercising power under section 173(3), Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrates are not\r\nto act as pawns in the hands of the police and pass mechanical orders without\r\napplication of their conscious mind to the facts and the material as placed\r\nbefore them. The learned Magistrates must be made to realize that the power to\r\ncancel a police case is of wide amplitude which has the effect of bringing to a\r\nhalt the criminal prosecution which otherwise would entail a detailed process.\r\nSuch a power, therefore, by its very nature, cannot be designed to be exercised\r\non mere \u003ci\u003eipse dixit \u003c/i\u003eof the police. Otherwise, the very purpose for\r\nconferring this power on the Magistrates on responsible level in supervisory\r\ncapacity would stand defeated\u0026quot;.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eSince an order of cancellation of a\r\ncriminal case, is an administrative order, there is no obligation on the\r\nMagistrate to hear the parties or their learned counsel. However, if he so\r\ndesires, he may give them a hearing for clarification of any question of law or\r\nfact involved in the case.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe three pre-conditions to act fairly,\r\njustly and honestly cast a duty on the Magistrate to apply his mind to the\r\nmaterial placed before him and after duly considering the pros and cons of the\r\nmatter, pass a speaking and well-reasoned order. He is not expected to put his\r\nsignatures on the dotted line, or blindly ditto the report of the police,\r\nsignifying his lack of application of mind or giving the impression of being\r\nled by the nose by them. However, he is not bound to hear the parties. A right\r\nof hearing is not allowed to the parties before an order of cancellation is\r\npassed by the Magistrate on the administrative side.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eMagistrate, while cancelling FIR and\r\ndischarging the accused, does not function as a Court and the order passed by\r\nhim cannot be treated as a judicial order---it is, however expected that the\r\nMagistrate should pass a \u003ci\u003espeaking order \u003c/i\u003eindicating as to how and on the\r\nbasis of what material he finds himself in agreement with the police report.\r\nAny order passed in a mechanical manner, without indicating independent\r\napplication of mind, is deprecated.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\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"