Investigation report

2026 PLD 35 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 173Investigation reportArrest of accusedAddition of new offencePrinciple

When investigating officer adds a new offence after submission of report under S. 173, Cr.P.C., accused cannot be re-arrested without order of Court first cancelling bail already granted.

2025 PLD 62 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss.169, 173 & 190(2)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324 & 34Investigation reportName in Column No. 2Constitutional petition

Complainant was aggrieved of placing name of accused person in Column No. 2 of investigation report submitted by investigating officer in case of qatl-i-amd and attempt to commit qatl-i-amd

Validity

Under the scheme of investigation, the Police Officer was empowered to release an accused upon the execution of a bond if it appeared to him that there was insufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify forwarding the accused to a Magistrate as per S. 169, Cr.P.C.

However, of great importance was the fact that these powers were not analogous to those of the Trial Court, which evaluated the credibility of evidence

In cases where the prosecution and the defence evidence were in conflict, the Trial Court served as the ultimate forum to weigh palpably both sets of evidence on a judicial scale, determining which to rely on and which to discard

Subsection (3) of S. 173, Cr.P.C., empowered the Magistrate to make such orders for the discharge of the bond or 'otherwise' as deemed fit after receiving the police report showing that the accused had been released on bond

Ipse dixit of the police was not binding on the Court and the Court retained the ultimate authority to determine the fate of the accused, regardless of their names being placed in Column No.2 of the challan

Placing the name of the respondent/accused in Column No.2 of the challan was within the statutory powers of the officer-in-charge of the police station and, thus, no jurisdictional error had been established

Authority now rested with the Magistrate to make such orders, after going through the record, as deemed appropriate, either discharging the bond or otherwise

Release of the accused under S. 169, Cr.P.C. did not equate to acquittal, and neither the Magistrate nor the Trial Court was bound by the ipse dixit of the police without conducting an independent assessment of the record

As challan had already been submitted in the case, therefore, Court left it to the forum seized of the matter to pass such orders under the law as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case

Constitutional petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.

2025 PLD 496 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 17Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 173Code of conductInvestigation ReportDuty of ProsecutorScope

Prosecutor is required to apply evidential and public interest tests on report submitted under S. 173, Cr.P.C. in order to evaluate evidence and applicability of offences against accused

Case cancellation report is a report under S. 173, Cr.P.C., therefore, such tests shall also be applied on it but only if prosecutor does not concur with police opinion so as to recommend the Court that sufficient material is available to proceed with the case

If prosecutor is in agreement with case cancellation report, he is not obliged to apply evidential test or public interest test because case assessment report is written to show availability of evidence and applicability of offence against any or all accused.

2025 MLD 1290 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 561-A, 169, 173 & 190(i)(b)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 147, 148 & 149Investigation reportName in column No. 2

Complainant was aggrieved of placing name of accused person in column No. 2 of investigation report submitted by investigating officer in case of qatl-i-amd and attempt to commit qatl-i-amd

Validity

In the present case, the private respondents were named in the FIR specifically

Complainant and his witnesses had been disbelieved by the Investigating Officer, so far as the private respondents were concerned, by doing so, prima facie the Investigating Officer had assumed the role of the Court without material evidence which was not permissible at law and the Judicial Magistrate ought to have referred the matter to the Sessions Court as the Sections were triable by Sessions Court

Since the Investigating Officer had kept the names of the private respondents in Column No. 2 of the charge sheet, the Judicial Magistrate had accepted such report without deliberation about their role in the crime which amounted to exoneration of the respondents, which in principle, was the function of the Trial Court as the offences were exclusively triable by the Sessions Court

Since the matter had been referred by Judicial Magistrate to Sessions Court for trial and it had been presumed that the respondents whose names were kept in column No. 2 of the charge sheet had been exonerated on their plea

Thus, it would be appropriated to direct the concerned Sessions Judge to look into the matter of the parties thoroughly and to see whether the names of respondents were rightly kept in column No. 2 by the Investigating Officer and accepted by the Judicial Magistrate based on cogent reasons or otherwise

Opinion of the Investigating Officer exonerating the respondents and acceptance of such report under S.173, Cr.P.C by the Judicial Magistrate to that extent shall remain in abeyance, till/trial decision

Petition was disposed of.

2021 MLD 745 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss.169, 173 & 190(2)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 324Investigation reportName in column No.2

Complainant was aggrieved of placing name of respondents / accused persons in column No. 2 of investigation Report submitted by investigating officer in case of qatl-i-amd and attempt to commit qatl-i-amd

Validity

Police had placed names of respondents / accused persons in column No.2 on account of deficient evidence however they were not discharged under S.169, Cr.P.C. by the concerned Police Official (SHO)

Report under S.173, Cr.P.C. was placed before Magistrate concerned who in view of S.190(2), Cr.P.C. would send the case before Court of Session

Court of Session would take cognizance of offence and once cognizance was taken up in offence, then Court of Session could issue process against any person prima facie found concerned in commission of offence, notwithstanding the fact that such person was exonerated or his name was not mentioned in police report, or was placed in column No.2 of the report

High Court declined to interfere in investigation report as the same was premature

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2019 PCrLJ 1756 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 168, 173, 190 & 561-APetition for quashing of orderInvestigation reportClass of caseDeterminationTaking of cognizance of caseMagistrate, duty of

Recommendation/request of the Investigating Officer to discharge the accused in case FIR registered under Ss. 354/452/337-F(V)/148/149, P.P.C. was turned down and he was directed to further reinvestigate the case

Validity

Report submitted by the Police Officer under S. 173, Cr.P.C., was not binding on the court

Court therefore, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Investigating Officer regarding cancellation of the case and discharge of the accused from the case, could decline to cancel the case and proceed to take cognizance of the matter as provided under S. 190, Cr.P.C.

Magistrate is competent to pass any order on the report submitted by the investigating officer and take cognizance of the offence or even order for further investigation

In the present case, the Magistrate had applied her mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and had passed order giving reasons of disagreement with the report of the investigating officer

No illegality or irregularity was found in the impugned order

Petition being devoid of force was dismissed in limine.

2019 PCrLJN 91 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 173Investigation reportCognizance by courtPrinciple

Ipsi dixit opinion of Investigating Officer was not binding.

2018 YLR 2239 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 173Investigation reportStatus

Report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. as to guilt or innocence of an accused person is a mere opinion of investigating officer and is not binding upon Court

Such report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. cannot be termed as an evidence to be blindly relied upon without applying judicial mind and recording reasons for the same if agreed or otherwise.

2017 MLD 1993 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.173Investigation ReportCognizance by courtPrinciplesIpsi dixit opinion of Investigating Officer is not binding upon Court

Trial Court can take cognizance of offences even in case of negative report submitted by police that accusation is baseless and no case is made out against the delinquents.

2016 PLD 300 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 173 & 190(1)Word 'may' occurring in S.190(1), Cr.P.C.SignificanceInvestigation reportAgreeing or disagreeing of MagistrateScope

Deliberate use of word 'may' is sufficient to show intention of Legislature that discretion has been left with magistrate either to agree or disagree with police report without being influenced with ipse dixit of police

While concurring with report submitted by police under S.173, Cr.P.C., Magistrate can competently agree or disagree with recommendation/conclusion or opinion of investigating officer and such 'inclining' or declining' is to be exercised under S.190, Cr.P.C.

2014 MLD 52 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.168, 173 & 561-AApplication for quashmentInvestigation reportClass of caseDeterminationMagistrate, duty of

Police submitted final report in "A" class due to lack of prosecution evidence but "A" class was not attracted as police had wrongly submitted final report in "A" class

Validity

Magistrate had also erred to accept report in "A" class as due to lack of evidence, it fell in "B" class

While passing administrative order, Magistrate was not supposed to act upon police report, on the contrary, it was duty of Magistrate to give his own finding with regard to sufficient or lack of evidence

Magistrate, while passing executive order had not gone through record of the case with such prudence as his office demanded from him and also failed to apply his conscious mind to the facts of the case and evidence collected by police

Non-speaking order was passed without any reason

Opinion of police was not to be followed blindly in every case and such opinion in view of legal evidence had to be tested in the light of totality of material on record

High Court set aside the order passed by Magistrate and report of police was directed to be treated as accepted under "B" class

Application was allowed in circumstances.