Magisterial Cognizance in Private Complaint Vs. State Case: A Procedural Analysis in Pakistan

305 MAGISTERIAL COGNIZANCE IN PRIVATE COMPLAINT VS. STATE CASE: A Procedural Analysis in Pakistan By Nida Zahid1 Advocate High Court ABSTRACT The stages of investigation in a criminal trial form the backbone of an effective criminal justice system, ensuring that justice is delivered while protecting the rights of individuals. This research study examines the investigative process in Pakistan, with particular focus on cognizable, non-cognizable offence and then enlist how cognizance is taken in state cases as well as private complaints within the framework of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, Constitutional safeguards, and Police Rules. The study highlights the sequential stages of investigation and emphasizes the procedural distinctions between state-initiated prosecutions and private complaints, detailing the legal authority of the police and the supervisory role of the judiciary. By analyzing the interplay of statutory provisions and police rules, this paper demonstrates that a legally well-structured investigation is essential for the integrity of criminal trials, protection of individual rights, and the prevention of miscarriage of justice. Ultimately, it concludes that strict adherence to these procedures strengthens the criminal justice system and ensures accountability in law enforcement. Keywords: Investigation, FIR, Criminal Justice System, State case, Private complaint. INTRODUCTION Investigation is the backbone of every Criminal Justice system. Prosecution is responsible to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. In Rajesh alias Rajoo v. State2 case, it was held by the August Supreme Court of Pakistan that in case of slightest doubt, the benefit of such doubt as to be given to the accused who is the favourite child of law . However in Muhammad Riaz v. Khurram Shehzad and another3 case, it was emphasized by the August Supreme Court of Pakistan that it is not obligatory or compulsory that there should be several circumstances creating doubts in order to justify the extension of benefit of doubt to the accused; on the contrary, even a simple circumstance creating reasonable doubt vis-a-vis, the guilt of the accused is sufficient to entitle him to such benefit. The accused is presumed to be innocent and cannot be convicted in absence of trustworthy, confidence inspiring evidence. The word investigation is derived from the Latin words investigation, investigates, and investigatum , meaning tracks, footprints or following the footprints. Criminal investigation is the close examination of the criminal activity. According to section 4(l)4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a criminal investigation can be defined as; All the proceedings conducted under this Code for the collection of evidence by a police-officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf. The criminal investigation provides a framework for the entire justice process. This is an effort to examine the facts, circumstances, motives, corpus delicti (body of crime) and modus operandi (methods of crime).5 The word investigation must be understood not only with reference to the powers of the police officer but also in the light of restrictions placed on them regarding the execution of such powers. There are the following three phases in every investigation: i. Administrative Phase ii. Judicial Phase iii. Executive Phase The administrative phase starts after the occurrence when the case is reported, and investigation is started by the concerned investigating officer. This phase is completed when the report is submitted in the court after the completion of the investigation, whereas the judicial phase is started when the police submit its report (after the completion of an investigation) in the court for trial. During the judicial phase, it is the duty of police to peruse the case properly and produce the witnesses in the court well in time along with case property. Finally, the Executive phase means after the conclusion of trial if the accused is convicted by the trial court to implement the conviction and if the accused is acquitted, to file appeal against the verdict of the trial court. COMMENCEMENT OF AN INVESTIGATION The process for commencing an investigation depends on the type of offence. The Cr.P.C. recognizes two types of offences: 1. Cognizable Offences 2. Non-cognizable Offences All offences under the law in Pakistan are categorized as either one of these types. Cognizable offences are generally considered more serious crimes. In case of Seeta Ram v. The State6, Supreme Court stated that the expressions "cognizable" and "non cognizable" are defined under sections 2(f) and 2(n) of Cr.P.C7 respectively. In case of a cognizable offence, section 156, Cr.P.C. empowers any police officer in charge of a police station to investigate without order of a Magistrate, while section 155, Cr.P.C. places a clog on the power of police officer, who cannot investigate without a specific order of Magistrate competent in such regard as has been mandated under section 155(2), Cr.P.C. Expression "shall" in both sections 155 and 156 Cr.P.C., makes it a mandatory statutory obligation of the incharge of a Police Station to enter such information in relevant prescribed book or register of FIR. If information relates to commission of a cognizable offence given orally or in writing then incharge of police station has no option except to enter it in the book prescribed for such purpose. In case of a non-cognizable offence, it is a statutory duty to enter the information in relevant prescribed book but investigation cannot be commenced or carried out without obtaining a specific order from a Magistrate competent in this regard. The actual investigation of both types of offences generally follows the same procedure as outlined in the Cr.P.C., for the purposes of arrest of a suspect, a warrant from a Magistrate is required in non-cognizable offences. The start of criminal investigation takes the inter alia following steps; 1. Receipt of Information concerning an Offence At the first step an informant or complainant provides the information to the Police. This information is then assessed by the concerned Police officer regarding: i. Whether an offence has actually taken place, ii. Whether the alleged offence is cognizable or non-cognizable under the law. 2. Registration of an FIR in Cognizable Offences Registration of a case under section 154, Cr.P.C. cannot be refused nor delayed when information relating to commission of a cognizable offence has been given to or received by officer incharge of a police station. Registration of case is first step to put criminal proceedings in motion and to enable officer incharge of a police station to embark upon course of investigation strictly in accordance with the mandate set out in Cr.P.C8. Thus, the Police cannot refuse to register an FIR in case of cognizable offences and if the Police determine that no offence has taken place, they are not bound to register an FIR. 3. Refraining or Delaying an Investigation in Cognizable cases Not all FIRs have to be investigated. The Police are given some discretion not to immediately commence an investigation and also to refrain altogether from conducting an investigation in cognizable offences under section 157 of the Cr.P.C. The conditions in which an officer-in-Charge of a Police Station may dispense with an investigation or delay it are: i. In cases which are not of a serious nature, ii. If it appears there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation. These powers are, however, to be used sparingly and it is not advised to delay or not conduct an investigation of an offence. It is stated in Umair Ishtiaq v. Station House Officer and others9, that First Information Report is not a condition precedent for initiating investigation by police. Even where FIR is recorded, investigating officer may refuse to investigate the case under Section 157 Cr.P.C. Mere fact that FIR is registered does not obligate investigating officer to arrest accused. Where investigation is dispensed with, the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station will forthwith send a report to the Magistrate under section 157 indicating his/her reasons for not investigating the case. The Officer will also inform the informant giving the information that no investigation is taking place. 4. Commencement of Investigation in Cognizable cases In cognizable cases the Police is empowered to commence an investigation under section 156 Cr.P.C when an FIR has been registered. The Police officer will forthwith send a report to the Magistrate under Section 157 Cr.P.C. and shall proceed personally or depute a subordinate officer to the spot to investigate the facts and circumstances. The officer investigating an offence will at all times maintain a case diary under Section 172 Cr.P.C in Form 25.54(1)10 of the Police Rules noting all actions taken with regard to the investigation. 5. Procedure in Non-Cognizable Cases When the officer-in-charge of a Police Station determines that the information received by him concerns the commission of non-cognizable offence, he shall record the information in the Daily Dairy maintained by the Police Station under section 155 Cr.P.C. He will then forward the complainant to the Magistrate as per section 155 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate may authorize the Police to conduct an investigation under section 155 Cr.P.C. Once the Police are authorized by a Magistrate to commence an investigation in a non-cognizable case, they have the same powers of investigation as apply for cognizable offences.11 Thus, the registration of a case is first step to put the criminal proceedings in motion and to enable officer incharge of police station to embark upon course of investigation strictly in accordance with the mandate set out in Cr.P.C. Registration of case, i.e. FIR itself, is not a substantive piece of evidence unless its contents are affirmed on oath by its maker while entering witness box and being subjected to cross examination. Every case registered under section 154, Cr.P.C. and the ensuing investigation ends up with filing a report under section 173 of Cr.P.C. Magistrate or a Court has no authority to interfere in the process of investigation nor to guide and direct investigation officer how or in what manner to investigate a case. Supervision of a Magistrate at each stage is to ensure that powers vested in an officer incharge of police station or any other authorized person are not abused for mala fide and extraneous reasons.12 PRIVATE COMPLAINTS VS. STATE CASES; PROCEDURAL INSIGHTS FROM PAKISTAN S CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.), the initiation of criminal proceedings and the assumption of cognizance by a Magistrate are governed by statutory provisions that define the procedural framework of Pakistan s criminal justice system. Unlike civil proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.), which commence through the institution of a plaint by an aggrieved party, criminal proceedings may begin either through state prosecution (following police investigation) or through a private complaint. The Magistrate s power to take cognizance is therefore central to determining how and under what authority criminal jurisdiction is set in motion. A Magistrate may assume cognizance of an offence under section 190 of Cr.P.C13 through the following primary modes: 1. Cognizance Under Section 173 Cr.P.C (State Case) Where a police investigation culminates in the submission of a report (commonly known as a challan) under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence on the basis of such report. This represents the typical State case, wherein prosecution is conducted by the State after investigation by the police authorities. 2. Cognizance Under Section 200 Cr.P.C (Private Complaint) Cognizance may also be taken upon a private complaint filed by an aggrieved person. In such instances, the Magistrate is required under Section 200 Cr.P.C. to examine the complainant and the witnesses present, on oath. After such preliminary examination and, where necessary, further inquiry under Sections 202 203 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate may proceed if sufficient grounds exist. This mode reflects the complainant-driven mechanism of criminal prosecution. 3. Other Recognized Modes of Cognizance Although not explicitly framed in the Cr.P.C. as Suo Motu powers, judicial interpretation has recognized limited situations in which a Magistrate may validly assume cognizance on his own initiative. These instances arise from the inherent judicial authority of the court and established legal principles. i. Perjury or Contempt in the Court s Own Proceedings Where an offence such as perjury (false evidence) or contempt is committed in the presence of the court, the Magistrate may, on the basis of his own observation of the offence, take cognizance without the need for a police report or a private complaint. This inherent authority flows from the Magistrate's judicial functions, even though the Cr.P.C. contains no express Suo Motu provision. It is stated in Khursheed Ahmed Uqabi v. Talib Hussain14 that a Preliminary inquiry is not mandatory against a witness for giving false evidence and a complaint can be filed without hearing person to be proceeded against. Court is duty bound to lodge complaint against the offending person. ii. Transfer of Cases on Grounds of Territorial Jurisdiction Territorial jurisdiction of Magistrates is ordinarily determined by the Provincial Government or by special notification. When a Magistrate transfers a case to another court for lack of territorial jurisdiction, the receiving Magistrate may directly take cognizance of the matter even without prior authorization from the Sessions Judge because the restriction under Section 193 Cr.P.C applies to Courts of Session, not Magistrates. iii. Cognizance Under Special/Limited Jurisdiction Laws Certain special statutes specifically empower a Magistrate to take cognizance upon receipt of a written complaint submitted by a designated authority. In such instances, the cognizance is not taken under Section 173 (police report) or Section 200 of Cr.P.C, but derives its authority directly from the relevant provision of the special enactment. For example: Cooperative Societies Laws: After conducting an inquiry, the Registrar, Assistant Registrar, or any other authorized officer may be directed to lodge a formal written complaint before the Magistrate for prosecution of the concerned offence. Company Law (Section 477 of The Companies Act): The provision provides that specified offences may be brought before the court through a written complaint by the Commission, the Registrar, or a member. Section 477 of the Company Law states as follows: 477. Complaint to the court by the Commission, registrar, member or creditor in case of certain offences.--(1) Offences provided in the Eighth Schedule under this Act which is alleged to have been committed by any company or any officer or auditor or any other person shall not be taken cognizance by the court, except on the complaint in writing of− (a) the Commission through its authorized officer or the registrar. In such cases, complaints are filed on behalf of the institution or statutory body by an authorized representative. Where a corporation, commission, or statutory body is the complainant; the complaint must be in writing, filed by a person duly authorized through a valid authority letter or resolution and since the authorized representative is not a direct eye-witness, the complaint does not fall under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Thus, cognizance in these cases is controlled by the special statute, which overrides the general procedural framework of Sections 173 and 200 Cr.P.C. iv. Offences Against the State Special Mode of Cognizance In matters involving offences against the State, the procedure for taking cognizance differs from the ordinary modes provided under Sections 173 and 200 of the Cr.P.C. When an offence is committed against the State, the law mandates that the complaint must be filed by the Public Prosecutor. However, this procedure does not follow the requirements applicable to the Section 200 Cr.P.C where a complainant is examined on oath, or Section 173 Cr.P.C where the police must conduct an investigation and submit a challan. Instead, these offences follow a special cognizance mechanism. i.e. Section 198-A Cr.P.C which deals with defamation of high public officials, including the President, a Head of State, or a public servant in respect of acts performed in official capacity. Under this provision, the Court of Session may take direct cognizance of the offence. No committal proceedings are necessary. Cognizance is based exclusively on the complaint of the Public Prosecutor, reflecting a legislative exception where initiation of prosecution remains under State control due to the public importance of such offences. COGNIZANCE BY A MAGISTRATE IN A STATE CASE VS. A PRIVATE COMPLAINT 1. Initiation of Proceedings: State Case v. Private Complaint Under Section 190 Cr.P.C, a Magistrate of the First Class, or any Magistrate specially empowered by the Provincial Government on the recommendation of the High Court, may take cognizance of an offence upon receiving a written report of facts from a police officer upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge or suspicion. In State Cases, the process ordinarily begins when information regarding a cognizable offence is provided to the police under Section 154 Cr.P.C. If the reported offence is non-cognizable, Section 155 Cr.P.C applies. Although no prescribed form exists for non-cognizable reports, the law presumes that the format of Section 154 developed by the Provincial Government, will apply pari materia in case of non-cognizable cases. This includes details such as date and time of reporting, particulars of the informant, place of occurrence, section(s) involved, property taken, delay explanation, and dispatch time. Under Section 155(2), once directed by a Magistrate, a police officer may investigate a non-cognizable offence with the same powers as in cognizable cases, except arrest without warrant. In contrast, a Private Complaint filed directly before a Magistrate must also meet requirements pari materia to Section 154: the complainant must narrate the occurrence, date, time, location, and explain any delay. Here pari materia means that the standards applicable to FIR information are similar in substance when information is submitted directly to the court. 2. Investigative Powers: Police Investigation vs. Judicial Inquiry In a State Case, Section 156(1) Cr.P.C empowers the officer-in-charge of a police station to investigate any cognizable offence without requiring a Magistrate s order. During the investigation, if the officer finds the report doubtful, he may decline to proceed further. Rule 24.4 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, mandates that the officer must record reasons in the station diary and inform the informant that the matter will not be investigated. Even during FIR recording, the police may decide to delete or add offences pending medical, chemical, or forensic reports. In a Private Complaint, the information is brought directly before the Magistrate. The Magistrate s inquiry under Section 200 202 Cr.P.C corresponds to the police s investigative authority. The Magistrate may summon documents, records, or evidence to verify the complainant s assertions. The statement recorded under Section 201 Cr.P.C is known as a cursory statement, and any fact/document not stated/presented therein cannot later be produced in the regular trial. Thus, the Magistrate essentially performs the initial inquiry that police would otherwise conduct. Section 202 of the Cr.P.C is, in fact, an enabling provision that empowers the Court to conduct an effective inquiry into the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations presented in the complaint. This inquiry serves to help the Court form an opinion as to whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed further. Therefore, the inquiry or investigation under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C is not a futile exercise and must be considered by the Court when deciding whether or not to issue process.15 3. Recording of Statements: Section 161 v. Cursory Statements In State Case, police record statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. These statements are neither taken on oath nor signed by the witness. The police may record only the relevant portion of the statement necessary for investigation. In a Private Complaint, however, the Magistrate must record verbatim what the complainant states under Section 201 Cr.P.C. The complainant s statement is given under oath and forms a judicial record. This gives a private complaint much higher judicial accountability compared to a police-recorded investigation, which is executive in nature. 4. Recovery, Powers, and Proceedings During Inquiry During a State Case, recovery from an accused may occur through police remand under Section 167 Cr.P.C while under Private Complaint, similar powers are exercised by the Magistrate under Sections 94 and 100 Cr.P.C, allowing the court to order production, summoning, search, or preservation of necessary items for purposes of inquiry. Thus, the Magistrate s powers run parallel to police authority in a state investigation. 5. Outcome of Inquiry: Police Report v. Judicial Dismissal In State Case, when the police decide not to continue proceedings after investigation, they follow Rule 24.4 of the Punjab Police Rules and forward their report to the Magistrate under Section 167 Cr.P.C. Under Section 157(2), they must record reasons for not conducting complete investigation and notify the informant. The Magistrate may agree or order a reinvestigation. Under Section 169 Cr.P.C, the police may release accused if evidence is insufficient. Whereas in Private Complaint, after inquiry under Section 201 Cr.P.C, if the Magistrate concludes that no offence is made out or that no offence is made out against particular persons, he dismisses the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. This dismissal is judicial and cannot be transferred to another judge. The Magistrate may also partially dismiss the complaint if only some individuals appear liable. Here the private complaint parallels state cases under Section 169 Cr.P.C. Likewise, in state cases, if an accused has no connection with the matter or FIR is defective, discharge may be recommended under Section 158 Cr.P.C, though discharge is not equivalent to acquittal as per Section 403 Cr.P.C.16 6. Submission of Final Report and Summoning Order In State Case, after completion of investigation the police submit the final report (challan) under Section 173 Cr.P.C, containing names of accused, nature of allegations, witnesses, and custody details whereas in Private Complaint, if, after inquiry, the Magistrate finds sufficient grounds to proceed, he issues process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. Once the process is issued, both state and private cases run identically under Section 221 Cr.P.C, where charges are framed. Furthermore, in private complaints, the Magistrate bears heightened responsibility because proceedings are judicial from the outset. Witness statements are on oath, unlike unsigned and unsworn statements under Section 161. Accordingly, a summoning order is a judicial order, and if important facts such as prior acquittal of an accused were not appreciated by the court, the proper remedy is to file an application based on the earlier acquittal rather than challenge the summoning order itself. 7. Bail Considerations in State Cases In state-initiated prosecutions, bail principles differ depending on offence classification. In bailable offences, bail is a right and refusal is an exception. In non-prohibitory offences, bail is normally granted as a rule. In prohibitory offences, however, bail is refused as a right and granted only as a matter of judicial grace. Such grace is generally extended only when the accused is a child, woman, sick or infirm, or the case requires further inquiry, or the accused has been detained without conclusion of trial through no fault of his own. This grace is not available to hardened, dangerous offenders or individuals accused of terrorism. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The criminal justice system aims to provide justice to all stakeholders of the case. During investigation, investigating agency digs out the truth, collects the evidence, and submits it before the court for better conclusion. If the investigation is proper and in accordance with law and legal procedure, then the court becomes able to decide the matter on merit, otherwise in many cases at the time of deciding the bail applications or conclusion of the trial of the accused, the apex court has observed the faulty investigation as the main reason for acquittal of accused or for granting of the bail. Investigation is the main pillar of the criminal justice system, and without proper investigation, it is impossible to prosecute and convict the guilty and save the innocent from the agony of a trial. In technological and advanced States specifically, detectives, criminologists, investigators, etc., have been adopting modern ways to control the crimes with the help of new investigation techniques. However, in developing states like Pakistan, the methods of crime investigation generally are the same as we were in the past. Therefore, it may be concluded that most criminal cases do not result in conviction due to faulty investigation. It is also concluded that the current system of investigation as a whole is not compatible with international and modern standards.17 The current study suggests the following steps to improve the standards of investigation: a. A fair system of appointment, promotion and adequate training programs should be designed and implemented to improve the functioning of investigating personnel. b. Revision of pay scale and incentives on a regular basis is necessary to motivate the investigating staff. c. Availability of investigation budget and equipment to meet the required needs is essential. d. Proper distribution of workload is also necessary to enhance the efficiency and quality of service. e. Provision of ministerial staff and other staff for record-keeping would improve the performance. f. Proper coordination with other inter-linked departments, especial branch, crime branch and operation wing would extend the scope and progress of investigation.18 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Ashraf S, Principle and Practice of Criminal Investigation in Pakistan (Assistant District Public Prosecutor, Nankana Sahib, 2015) PLJ Law Site https://www.pljlawsite.com/2015art47.htm accessed 6 February 2026. 2. CSS Prep Forum, Criminal Justice System Investigation Process (CSSprepforum.com, 16 September 2024) <https: // cssprepforum.com/criminal-justice-system-investigation-process/ accessed 6 February 2026. 3. Hussain A, Asghar K and Saeed MA, The Study of Procedure of Investigation under the Criminal Justice System: A Case Study of Pakistan (2020) 5(III) Global Legal Studies Review 105 112 <https: // www. researchgate. net / publication / 367793852_The_Study_of_Procedure_of_Investigation_under_the_Criminal_Justice_System_A_Case_Study_of_Pakistan> accessed 6 February 2026. 4. Khursheed Ahmed Uqabi v. Talib Hussain PLD 2023 HCAJK 79. 5. Muhammad Rajar v. The State PLD 2025 SC 40. 6. Muhammad Riaz v. Khurram Shehzad and another PLJ 2024 SC 51. 7. Muhammad Riaz v. Khurram Shehzad and another 2024 SCMR 51. 8. P.I.A. Corporation v. Wafaqi Mohtasib PLD 1994 Kar. 32. 9. Police Rules, 1934. 10. Rajesh alias Rajoo v. State 2025 SCMR 1876. 11. Research Society of International Law, Handbook of Criminal Investigation in Pakistan (National Police Bureau, Government of Pakistan 2021) <https: // balochistanpolice. gov. pk/ system/ files/Handbook%20of%20Criminal%20Investigation.pdf> accessed 6 February 2026. 12. Sahito IH, The Criminal Investigation in Pakistan: Trends and Reality (2009) Journal of Pakistan Vision 10(2) 175 196 <https://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/studies/PDF-FILES / Artical %20No-9-V10%2C%20No.2%20Dec_09.pdf> accessed 6 February 2026. 13. Seeta Ram v. The State 2025 SCMR 2028. 14. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 15. Umair Ishtiaq v. Station House Officer and others 2023 PCr.LJ 340. 16. United States Institute of Peace, Chapter 8: Investigation of a Criminal Offense (Model Criminal Code for Post-Conflict Countries MC2-11, United States Institute of Peace 2011) <https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/MC2/MC2-11-Ch8.pdf> accessed 15 February 2026. 17. United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Criminal Justice in Japan 2019: Chapter 5 Trial Process (United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders 2019) <https: // www. unafei.or.jp / publications/ pdf/ CJSJ_2019/ 07chapter5. pdf> accessed15February 2026. *** 1 Nida Zahid, Advocate High Court, Gold Medalist LLB- International Islamic University Islamabad, LLM University of The Punjab Lahore, Email: advnidazahid@gmail.com. 2 Rajesh alias Rajoo v. State (2025) SCMR 1876. 3 Muhammad Riaz v. Khurram Shehzad and another (2024) SCMR 51. 4 The Code of Criminal Procedure,1898. 5 CSS Prep Forum, Criminal Justice System Investigation Process (CSS prepforum.com, 16 September 2024) https://cssprepforum.com/criminal-justice-system-investigation-process/ accessed 6 February 2026. 6 Seeta Ram v. The State (2025) SCMR 2028. 7 The Code of Criminal Procedure,1898. 8 Seeta Ram v. The State (2025) SCMR 2028. 9 Umair Ishtiaq v. Station House Officer and others 2023 (PCr.LJ) 340. 10 Police Rules,1934. 11 Research Society of International Law, Handbook of Criminal Investigation in Pakistan (National Police Bureau, Government of Pakistan, 2021). <https://balochistanpolice.gov.pk/system/files/Handbook%20of%20Criminal%20Investigation.pdf> accessed 6 February 2026. 12 Seeta Ram v. The State (2025) SCMR 2028. 13 The Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, Section 190. 14 Khursheed Ahmed Uqabi v. Talib Hussain PLD 2023 HCAJK 79. 15 Muhammad Rajar v. The State PLD 2025 SC 40. 16 United States Institute of Peace, Chapter 8: Investigation of a Criminal Offense (Model Criminal Code for Post-Conflict Countries MC2-11, United States Institute of Peace 2011) <https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/MC2/MC2-11-Ch8.pdf> accessed 15 February 2026. 17 Amjad Hussain, Khalid Asghar and Muhammad Arif Saeed, The Study of Procedure of Investigation under the Criminal Justice System: A Case Study of Pakistan (2020) 5(III) Global Legal Studies Review 105 112. 18 Imdad Hussain Sahito, The Criminal Investigation in Pakistan: Trends and Reality (2009) Journal of Pakistan Vision 10(2) 175 196 https://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/studies/PDF-FILES/Artical%20No-9-V10%2C%20No.2%20Dec_09.pdf accessed 6 February 2026.