FIRs cannot be used as pretext for arrests: SC
Top court notes ‘utter confusion’ on recording of multiple FIRs
No arrest can be made unless sufficient evidence exists, rules top court. PHOTO: FILE
ISLAMABAD:
Police simply cannot arrest anyone just because he or she has been nominated in an FIR, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.
These guidelines were issued to the police regarding investigations of criminal cases in a 47-page verdict, authored by acting CJ Justice Khosa.
The seven-judge larger bench, headed by Acting Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa also declared that there was no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for registering multiple FIRs.
The court relied on contentions of Attorney-General Ashtar Ausaf Ali, who was assisted by Barrister Asad Rahim.
The larger bench considered legal aspects of a suo motu case regarding the registration of second FIR against a police encounter in which the petitioner’s son, Mohsin Ali, was killed in Lahore.
The landmark judgment noted that in the past, there was utter confusion in this regard as various courts took disparate positions on the issue of registering multiple FIRs.
Citing Section 154 of CrPC, the apex court stated that an FIR was just the first information to the local police about commission of a cognizable offence.
Islamabad cop allegedly demanded Rs35,000 to register FIR
Secondly, the court held that if the local police was informed how the offence was committed, by whom and the background of the incident then that version of the incident was just the version of the informant and nothing more.
“(This) version is not to be unreservedly accepted by the investigating officer as truth.
“If a criminal case existed because of the registration of an FIR, this case shall be assigned a number and … the same number will be applicable until a final decision on the matter,” the ruling said.
Subsequently, the investigating officer shall record all versions of the same incident under Section 161 of the CrPC in the same case.
No separate FIR should be recorded for the same incident during investigations.
Justice Khosa wrote that the investigating officer was obliged to investigate the matter keeping in mind all possible angles, adding that investigating officers were duty-bound to determine the truth, discover actual facts and arrest real offenders.
“He shall not commit himself prematurely to any view … for or against any person.”
According to the verdict: “Ordinarily, no person is to be arrested straightaway (just) because he has been nominated as an accused … in an FIR or in any other version of the incident brought to the notice of the investigating officer … until the investigating officer feels satisfied that sufficient justification exists for his arrest and for such justification he is to be guided by relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 and the Police Rules of 1934.”
The court also noted that a suspect cannot be arrested unless the situation warranted in the light of relevant provisions.
The arrest, the verdict stated, should be deferred till sufficient material or evidence became available on record, satisfying the investigating officer regarding the correctness of allegations levelled against such suspect or regarding his involvement in the crime.
The court stated that after the investigation concluded, a report should be submitted under Section 173 of CrPC based upon actual facts irrespective of the version of the incident advanced by the first informant or any other version brought to the notice of the investigating officer.
Sharae Faisal 'encounter': Anti-terrorism clause to be added in FIR against Sindh police officials
The apex court asked the registrar’s office to send copies of this judgment to all inspectors-general of all provinces and also the Islamabad Capital Territory, directing them to apprise all SHOs of all police stations in the country.
The court also urged all relevant officers concerned to follow the law in letter and spirit.
Justice Khosa maintained that the FIR number allocated to a criminal case should be the number of that case in the police record till the culmination of the case.
The court stated that all criminal cases should carry these same numbers and identified by these numbers alone.
“There is to be only one FIR and every step taken during the investigation of the case is to be with reference to that FIR.”
The court noted that once an FIR was registered, the investigating officer should not restrict himself to the story narrated or allegations leveled in the FIR alone. He should entertain any and all fresh information from any other source on how the offence was committed and by whom. The investigation officer, the verdict stated, should derive his own conclusions in this regard.
Regarding Mohsin Ali’s murder case, the court observed that the case had occurred more than a decade ago and the trial of this case had been pending for the past several without any significant progress.
“The delay … and apathy … displayed in the matter (is) shocking to say the least. The trial court is, therefore, directed to conclude … this case within the next four months … and … submit a report … before the Registrar of this Court …”, the ruling stated.
The court also stated: “… Registration of another FIR based upon the petitioner’s version of (the same) incident is not legally warranted. This petition is, thus, dismissed.”
Police simply cannot arrest anyone just because he or she has been nominated in an FIR, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.
These guidelines were issued to the police regarding investigations of criminal cases in a 47-page verdict, authored by acting CJ Justice Khosa.
The seven-judge larger bench, headed by Acting Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa also declared that there was no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for registering multiple FIRs.
The court relied on contentions of Attorney-General Ashtar Ausaf Ali, who was assisted by Barrister Asad Rahim.
The larger bench considered legal aspects of a suo motu case regarding the registration of second FIR against a police encounter in which the petitioner’s son, Mohsin Ali, was killed in Lahore.
The landmark judgment noted that in the past, there was utter confusion in this regard as various courts took disparate positions on the issue of registering multiple FIRs.
Citing Section 154 of CrPC, the apex court stated that an FIR was just the first information to the local police about commission of a cognizable offence.
Islamabad cop allegedly demanded Rs35,000 to register FIR
Secondly, the court held that if the local police was informed how the offence was committed, by whom and the background of the incident then that version of the incident was just the version of the informant and nothing more.
“(This) version is not to be unreservedly accepted by the investigating officer as truth.
“If a criminal case existed because of the registration of an FIR, this case shall be assigned a number and … the same number will be applicable until a final decision on the matter,” the ruling said.
Subsequently, the investigating officer shall record all versions of the same incident under Section 161 of the CrPC in the same case.
No separate FIR should be recorded for the same incident during investigations.
Justice Khosa wrote that the investigating officer was obliged to investigate the matter keeping in mind all possible angles, adding that investigating officers were duty-bound to determine the truth, discover actual facts and arrest real offenders.
“He shall not commit himself prematurely to any view … for or against any person.”
According to the verdict: “Ordinarily, no person is to be arrested straightaway (just) because he has been nominated as an accused … in an FIR or in any other version of the incident brought to the notice of the investigating officer … until the investigating officer feels satisfied that sufficient justification exists for his arrest and for such justification he is to be guided by relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 and the Police Rules of 1934.”
The court also noted that a suspect cannot be arrested unless the situation warranted in the light of relevant provisions.
The arrest, the verdict stated, should be deferred till sufficient material or evidence became available on record, satisfying the investigating officer regarding the correctness of allegations levelled against such suspect or regarding his involvement in the crime.
The court stated that after the investigation concluded, a report should be submitted under Section 173 of CrPC based upon actual facts irrespective of the version of the incident advanced by the first informant or any other version brought to the notice of the investigating officer.
Sharae Faisal 'encounter': Anti-terrorism clause to be added in FIR against Sindh police officials
The apex court asked the registrar’s office to send copies of this judgment to all inspectors-general of all provinces and also the Islamabad Capital Territory, directing them to apprise all SHOs of all police stations in the country.
The court also urged all relevant officers concerned to follow the law in letter and spirit.
Justice Khosa maintained that the FIR number allocated to a criminal case should be the number of that case in the police record till the culmination of the case.
The court stated that all criminal cases should carry these same numbers and identified by these numbers alone.
“There is to be only one FIR and every step taken during the investigation of the case is to be with reference to that FIR.”
The court noted that once an FIR was registered, the investigating officer should not restrict himself to the story narrated or allegations leveled in the FIR alone. He should entertain any and all fresh information from any other source on how the offence was committed and by whom. The investigation officer, the verdict stated, should derive his own conclusions in this regard.
Regarding Mohsin Ali’s murder case, the court observed that the case had occurred more than a decade ago and the trial of this case had been pending for the past several without any significant progress.
“The delay … and apathy … displayed in the matter (is) shocking to say the least. The trial court is, therefore, directed to conclude … this case within the next four months … and … submit a report … before the Registrar of this Court …”, the ruling stated.
The court also stated: “… Registration of another FIR based upon the petitioner’s version of (the same) incident is not legally warranted. This petition is, thus, dismissed.”