Case Details

Citation(s)
2024 SLG 2547 2024 SLD 2547 2024 YLR 318
Sindh High Court, Sukkur Bench
Criminal Miscellaneous Applications Nos. S-759 and S-764 of 2021, decided on 15th April, 2022.Date of hearing: 7th March, 2022.
Before Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J
Mehfooz Ahmed Awan for Applicants (in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. S-759 of 2021). Qurban Ali Malano for Applicants (in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. S-764 of 2021). Syed Sardar Ali Shah Rizvi, Additional Prosecutor General for the Stat

JAHANGIR KHAN and others---Applicants

VERSUS

The STATE and others---Respondents

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 324,353,399,402,148,149

Law: Sindh Arms Act, 2013

Section: 24

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 561-A

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 324, 353, 399, 402, 148 & 149---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 24---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561-A---Inherent powers of High Court---Quashing of orders---Summary submitted by the Investigating Officer for disposal of the case/FIR, under "A" class was disapproved by the Magistrate---Validity---Record showed that it was a case of police encounter wherein brother of the complainant died---In the case in hand the first Investigating Officer who recorded the statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C. and visited the place of occurrence was of the opinion that the case was liable to be disposed of under "A" class and such report was concurred by the prosecution---However, while assigning the reasons, Magistrate ordered for further investigation which too was conducted and result was the same---In the case in hand it was second Investigation Officer who conducted the investigation of the present case and after the investigation he too recommended the case to be disposed of under "A" class---However on perusal of entire investigation reports it reflected that only applications filed by the brother and the mother of the deceased were considered as second version and nobody including the mother of deceased was examined by second Investigation Officer though she was not an eye-witness of arrest of the deceased but the application under Ss.22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C., brought some facts in respect the encounter, and the brother of the deceased who claimed to be an eye-witness and filed application as under S. 491, Cr.P.C. before the encounter, was also not examined during second investigation--- Investigation Officer claimed that they were not traceable which was also reflected from the order of Magistrate wherein it was mentioned that "second party could not be served despite issuance of notice"---Circumstances established that no proper investigation of second version was conducted by the police nor the Magistrate passed order after considering the said facts, therefore the impugned order passed by the Judicial Magistrate was set-aside---High Court directed that since the Police Officials were allegedly involved in the case of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492