Police report

2018 YLR 1042 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 173Police reportScope

Accused once declared innocent during the course of investigation and placed in column No. 2 of challan, he was no more an accused person nor he could be treated so, till the submission of challan and Trial Court takes cognizance for his trial.

2018 YLRN 63 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 173Police reportComplainant impugned the order passed by MagistrateSummary report submitted by Investigating Officer was approved under 'C'-Class by MagistrateParties were disputed over property and such fact reflected from the averments of FIR

Alleged incident of firing at the complainant had occurred on 21.02.2015 while FIR was lodged on 30.03.2015 in compliance of the order by the Justice of Peace

Complainant had narrated three different stories in his miscellaneous application by levelling series of allegations against accused however in FIR he had not narrated the same facts and had taken divergent stances which invalidated the entire structure of the case

Accused persons allegedly had fired at the complainant which missed

Neither accused persons had repeated any fire upon the complainant nor caused any kind of injury or harassment by issuing threats to him

No empty from the spot nor any other connecting evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer

Complainant had not alleged that during investigation the Investigating Officer did not record statements of defence witnesses correctly or refused to record their statements or investigated the case impartially

Magistrate was not bound to follow the findings of Investigating Officer placed before him in the shape of summary report at the time of conclusion of investigation however it was incumbent upon the Magistrate to examine entire material and set of allegations prudently while passing the order on summary submitted by Investigating Officer

Magistrate had passed an appropriate and speaking order and had not committed any illegality or material irregularity while passing impugned order

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

2018 YLRN 63 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 173Police reportScope

Magistrate would not be bound to follow the findings of Investigating Officer placed before him in the shape of summary report at the time of conclusion of investigation however it was incumbent upon the Magistrate to examine entire material and set of allegations prudently while passing the order on summary report submitted by Investigating Officer.

2014 PLD 33 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 173Police reportNecessary ingredients

Three essentials of challan/report submitted by police under S.173 Cr.P.C. before Trial Court, which includes description of offence, production of accused and evidence to prove offence

Trial Court can start trial only when all three facts are produced before it.

2013 YLR 1948 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 173Police reportInvestigation officerDuty of

Investigation officer was not supposed to arrogate himself the function of adjudication in order to determine nature of offences and then give a pre-trial verdict of the innocence of the accused.

2013 YLR 54 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 173Police reportDisposal of case under class 'A', 'B' or 'C'

Report of police for disposal of the case under either of the said classes was not binding upon the court.

2013 YLR 54 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 173 & 344Police reportCognizance taken by Court of SessionPower of Magistrate to dispose of the case in such circumstancesScope

Once cognizance was taken on a police report in matters triable by the Court of Session, then even on interim report under S. 344, Cr.P.C, the Magistrate was no more competent to pass an order for disposal of case on subsequent report(s).

2013 PCrLJ 1034 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 497 & 173BailPolice reportScopePolice report ipse dixit was not binding upon the court

While dealing with a bail application, court had to see the facts and circumstances of the case and if same were in negation or overwhelming upon the police report, the outcome of such report was of no help to the accused at bail stage.

2012 PCrLJ 1174 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S. 173Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.353, 186, 337-A, 337-F & 506Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.42

Assault or criminal force to deter public servant in discharging public function; causing Shajjah and Ghayr Jaifah and criminal intimidation

Police report

Scope

Case was registered against appellant/accused and Police after necessary investigation submitted report under S.173, Cr.P.C. for cancellation of the case

Tehsil Criminal Court, while disagreeing with the opinion of the Police, summoned the accused and fixed the date of hearing

Appellant/accused challenged said order of the Tehsil Criminal Court by way of filing revision petition which was dismissed

Validity

Police under S.173, Cr.P.C. after investigation, had to submit the report in the court of competent jurisdiction

Police had no jurisdiction to hold a person innocent or guilty

Only the court had the jurisdiction to declare a person innocent or guilty of the offence

Court was not bound by the ipse dixit of the Police

Before passing an order on the report of Police, the Magistrate had to examine the record and form the opinion, whether the Police report was correct; and the request of Police for cancellation of the case, was genuine or not

If the Magistrate would reach to the conclusion after perusal of the record that the Police had reached to the correct conclusion after investigation that the case was false, then he had to cancel the case

If however, the Magistrate would reach to the conclusion that accused appeared to be connected with the crime; and there was sufficient material for trial of the case, then he would summon accused for trial

Courts were not bound by the opinion of the Police, but it had to form its independent opinion on the basis of material brought before it

Tehsil Criminal Court, was not bound by the report submitted before it by the Police, had correctly issued process for summoning the accused for trial.

2012 PLD 406 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 173 & 190Police reportRecommendation/opinion for disposing of F.I.R. in class `A', `B' or `C'ScopeCognizance of offence by the Magistrate notwithstanding. such recommendation/ opinionScope

Even in case the investigation officer recommended disposing of the F.I.R. in class `A', `B' or `C', such recommendation/ opinion was not binding upon the court and it may take cognizance if it deemed fit and proper on the basis of incriminating material available on record, however, it was incumbent upon the court to advert to it, examine it and to take cognizance on the matter, as envisaged under S. I90, Cr. P. C

Under 5.173, Cr. P. C, court may agree or disagree with the police report and notwithstanding the recommendations of the investigation officer regarding cancellation of the case, could decline to cancel the case and proceed to take cognizance as provided under S.190, Cr. P. C.

2012 PLD 406 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 173 & 561-APenal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.452/506-B/201/ 148/149House trespass after preparation for hurt, criminal intimidation, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assemblyQuashing of orderPolice reportRecommendation/opinion for disposing of F.I.R. in class `C'ScopeMagistrate declining to cancel the case on the basis of the police reportNature and scope of such order

Complainant (respondent) had lodged an F.I.R. against the accused persons (applicants) with the allegation that they entered his house and threatened to murder him and kidnap his daughter because of a dispute over a share in the property

Report submitted by the investigation officer recommended cancellation of said F.LR. under class `C'

Magistrate disagreeing with such report of the investigation officer gave directions to submit charge sheet against the accused persons

Contentions of the accused persons were that the Magistrate gave no reasons as to why the report submitted by the police was not confidence inspiring; that the accused persons were present its different cities at the time of the alleged incident; that the Magistrate failed to mention names of witnesses or any other incriminating Material on basis of which he disagreed with the police report, and that the contents of the F.I.R. revealed that no offence had been committed by the accused persons

Validity

Magistrate while passing an order on basis of the final report submitted by the police under 5.173, Cr. P. C, acts in an administrative capacity, but he has no power to act arbitrarily

Such an order might not be a judicial order but it must be a judicious order and not an arbitrary order without reasons and justifications

Magistrate was required to consider the report under 5.173, Cr. P. C, in light of the material collected during the investigation and then pass the order=

Magistrate was not expected to blindly ditto the report of the police, which could signify his lack of application of mind or give the impression of being led by the police

Magistrate on seeing the final report of the police should act fairly, justly and honestly by applying his mind to the material placed, before him, and he should pass a speaking and well-reasoned order after duly considering the pros and cons of the matter

Nothing was available on record to show that the Magistrate while passing the impugned order, had applied his independent mind and considered the material available on record for reaching an unequivocal conclusion, as to why the report of the investigation officer was not inspiring confidence; and said impugned order did not show what material was collected or available on the record to connect the accused persons with the case

Magistrate had observed that there was sufficient material available in the police file but no discussion about such material was made in the impugned order

If sufficient material was available on the police file, question then was why the police recommended cancellation of F.I.R. in "C" class

Complainant and accused persons were related inter se and there was a property dispute between them

Accused persons had pointed out affidavits submitted by the complainant's mother and sister, wherein, it had been stated that the complainant was trying to usurp the properties of his deceased father and when the accused persons requested him to give them their shares in the said properties, the complainant threatened to falsely implicate them in criminal cases

Impugned order of Magistrate was quashed and he was directed to pass a speaking order on the report submitted by the investigation officer after considering the entire material collected during the investigation.