| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 5445 2025 SLD 5445 = 2025 PCRLJ 1601 |
Sindh High Court
Civil Petitions Nos. D-2026 and D-128 of 2025, decided on 17th May, 2025.
Before Muhammad Saleem Jessar and Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, JJ
Muhammad Omer Soomro, Abdul Haseeb Qazi, Irshad Ahmed Jatoi, Najiullah Siddiqui, Abdul Qadoos Jatoi and Fiza Chaudhri, Advocates along with Accused Ghulam Murtaza Jatoi, nominated accused in impugned FIRs for Petitioner. Muntazir Mehdi, Acting Prosecutor General, Sindh along with Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl. Prosecutor General Sindh and Hakim Ali Shaikh, Addl. Advocate General, Sindh as well as Sagheer Ahmed Abbasi, Assistant Advocate General, Sindh along with Muhammad Zaman Awan, Circle Officer, ACE, Naushero Feroze, Pannah Shah, DSP (Legal) Dadu, P.I Muhammad Qasim and SI Faiz Ali of P.S Darakhshan, Karachi and Muhammad Yousuf, Deputy Superintendent on behalf of I.G Prison, Karachi (present in Court) for
Respondents.
Civil Petitions Nos. D-2026 and D-128 of 2025, decided on 17th May, 2025.
Before Muhammad Saleem Jessar and Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, JJ
Muhammad Omer Soomro, Abdul Haseeb Qazi, Irshad Ahmed Jatoi, Najiullah Siddiqui, Abdul Qadoos Jatoi and Fiza Chaudhri, Advocates along with Accused Ghulam Murtaza Jatoi, nominated accused in impugned FIRs for Petitioner. Muntazir Mehdi, Acting Prosecutor General, Sindh along with Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl. Prosecutor General Sindh and Hakim Ali Shaikh, Addl. Advocate General, Sindh as well as Sagheer Ahmed Abbasi, Assistant Advocate General, Sindh along with Muhammad Zaman Awan, Circle Officer, ACE, Naushero Feroze, Pannah Shah, DSP (Legal) Dadu, P.I Muhammad Qasim and SI Faiz Ali of P.S Darakhshan, Karachi and Muhammad Yousuf, Deputy Superintendent on behalf of I.G Prison, Karachi (present in Court) for
Respondents.
NAVEEN JATOI---Petitioner
VERSUS
PROVINCE OF SINDH and others---Respondents
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 154,173,561A
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 56(e)
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S.154---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Quashing of FIRs--Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Petitioner not named in the FIRs for which quashment sought ---Petitioner in instant case was the wife of accused against whom the FIRs, sought to be quashed, had been registered--From bare perusal of impugned FIRs, it seemed to be an admitted position that the petitioner had not been named and/or nominated in those FIRs, nor during investigation conducted after registration of said FIRs, she had been involved in any manner in those cases---Petitioner was not an aggrieved person to seek quashing of the FIRs---Admitted position was that investigation in the impugned FIRs had already been completed and charge sheet/challan under S.173, Cr.P.C., had been submitted before the concerned Court and cognizance had been taken by the Trial Court---In such circumstances, it did not seem to be proper to quash the FIRs, rather it was for the Trial Court to determine the fate of the case---Noteworthy that prayers seeking injunction/restraint orders with regard to criminal proceedings were hit by the provisions of S.56(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, which laid down that an injunction could not be granted to stay proceedings in any criminal matter---Such conduct of petitioner was not appreciable and it was appropriate that separate petitions should have been filed for quashing of each FIR---Of course, had all the impugned FIRs been the result of one and the same incident, the situation would have been different but, in instant case all three impugned FIRs were lodged in respect of three different incidents, that too lodged in different police stations on different dates and times---On that score too, the petition did not seem to be maintainable--Even otherwise, consequent determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused fell within the domain of the Trial Court and that resort to the provisions of S.561-A, Cr.P.C., or to the provisions of Art. 199 of the Constitution seeking quashing of a criminal case was an extraordinary remedy which could be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances and exceptional…