IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa 
Mr. Justice Maqbool Baqar 
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah 
 
 
Criminal Appeal No. 547 of 2017 
(Against the judgment dated 10.03.2014 passed by the High Court 
of Baluchistan, Quetta in Criminal Quashment Petition No. 428 of 
2013) 
 
 
 
Muhammad Hanif 
…Appellant 
 
 
 
 
 
versus 
The State 
…Respondent 
 
 
For the appellant: 
Mr. Abdur Rehman Awan, ASC 
 
For the State:  
Syed Baqar Shah, State Counsel 
Mr. Aurangzeb, I.O. 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
 
18.10.2018 
 
JUDGMENT  
 
 
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.: 
 
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 359 of 2018 
 
 
This miscellaneous application is allowed and the document 
appended therewith is permitted to be brought on the record of the 
main appeal. Disposed of.  
 
Criminal Appeal No. 547 of 2017 
 
2. 
The facts of this case are quite long but the long and short of 
the same is that in his capacity as an Additional Sessions Judge 
Criminal Appeal No. 547 of 2017 
 
2 
the appellant had convicted the Naib Court of his court namely 
Muhammad Akram for an offence under section 218, PPC but 
while deciding the appeal filed by the said Muhammad Akram the 
matter was remanded by the High Court to the trial court with a 
direction to the local police to reinvestigate the case and to 
resubmit a Challan against all the persons involved in the offence 
without specifying as to who those all persons were. As a result of 
the remand order the matter was reinvestigated by the local police 
and a fresh Challan was submitted before the trial court against 
one Zaman Khan but instead of entertaining the said fresh Challan 
the trial court directed the local police for resubmission of the 
Challan against all the persons involved, as had been directed by 
the High Court, once again failing to specify as to who all those 
persons were. Taking clue from the orders passed by the High 
Court as well as the trial court the local police formed an 
impression that the relevant courts wanted a Challan to be 
submitted against the present appellant as well and, thus, a fresh 
Challan was submitted before the trial court against him as well on 
the basis of which an order was passed regarding arrest of the 
appellant and his production before the trial court. The said order 
was challenged by the appellant before the High Court through a 
petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. and  through the impugned 
order dated 09.11.2016 the said petition filed by the appellant was 
dismissed by the High Court. Hence, the present appeal by leave of 
this Court granted on 29.11.2017.  
 
2. 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have 
gone through the record of the case with their assistance.  
 
3. 
The earlier order passed by the High Court on 13.06.2013 as 
well as the impugned order passed by the High Court on 
09.11.2016, when read together with the order passed by the trial 
court on 16.06.2015, create an irresistible impression that the 
High Court as well as the trial court had insisted that the local 
police must file a Challan against the present appellant. Such 
approach of the High Court and the trial court was completely 
Criminal Appeal No. 547 of 2017 
 
3 
alien to the law as the law is settled by now that no court can 
insist that a Challan of a case must be submitted against any 
particular person and this legal position had been clarified by this 
Court in the case of Muhammad Nasir Cheema v. Mazhar Javaid 
and others (PLD 2007 SC 31). The said principle has also been 
reiterated by a Larger Bench of this Court in the recent case of Mst. 
Sughran Bibi v. The State (PLD 2018 SC 595).  
 
4. 
It is intriguing to notice that another accused person in this 
case namely Muhammad Iqbal, placed in an identical predicament 
with the present appellant, had been granted the necessary relief 
by the same High Court through acceptance of his petition under 
section 561-A, Cr.P.C. vide judgment dated 30.12.2016 handed 
down by another Hon’ble Judge of the same High Court and the 
proceedings against the said co-accused had been quashed. It 
appears that different accused persons placed in the same position 
in the same criminal case had been treated differently by different 
Hon’ble Judges of the same High Court which is unfortunate, to 
say the least.  
 
5. 
Investigation of a criminal case falls within the exclusive 
domain of the police and if on the one hand independence of the 
judiciary is a hallmark of a democratic dispensation then on the 
other hand independence of the investigating agency is equally 
important to the concept of rule of law. Undue interference in each 
others’ roles destroys the concept of separation of powers and 
works a long way towards defeating justice and this was so 
recognized in the case of Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed (AIR 
1945 Privy Council 18). The relevant paragraph from the judgment 
passed in that case is reproduced below: 
 
“Just as it is essential that every one accused of a crime should 
have free access to a Court of justice so that he may be duly 
acquitted if found not guilty of the offence with which he is 
charged, so it is of the utmost importance that the judiciary 
should not interfere with the police in matters which are within 
their province and into which the law imposes upon them the 
duty of enquiry. In India there is a statutory right on the part of 
the police under Ss. 154 and 156, to investigate the 
Criminal Appeal No. 547 of 2017 
 
4 
circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring 
any authority from the judicial authorities, and it would be an 
unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with 
those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction 
of the Court under S. 561A. The functions of the judiciary and the 
police are complementary not overlapping and the combination of 
individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only 
to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, 
always of course subject to the right of the Court to intervene in 
an appropriate case when moved under S. 491, Criminal P.C., to 
give directions in the nature of habeas corpus. In the case of a 
cognizable offence, the Court’s functions begin when a charge is 
preferred before it and not until then and, therefore, the High 
Court can interfere under S. 561A only when a charge has been 
preferred and not before. As the police have under Ss. 154 and 
156, a statutory right to investigate a cognizable offence without 
requiring the sanction of the Court to quash the police 
investigation on the ground that it would be an abuse of the 
powers of the Court would be to act on treacherous grounds.”   
 
It appears that the High Court as well as the trial court in the 
present case had remained oblivious of the said constitutional and 
legal principle imbedded in our Constitution and the law.  
 
6. 
For what has been discussed above this appeal is allowed, 
the impugned judgment passed by the High Court on 09.11.2016 
in Criminal Quashment Petition No. 428 of 2013 is set aside, the 
said petition filed by the appellant before the High Court is allowed 
and the relevant proceedings against him presently pending before 
the trial court are quashed.  
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad 
18.10.2018 
Approved for reporting. 
  
Arif 
