| Case ID |
0aaf3927-942c-4d17-93fc-8d05c96620e4 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
W.P. No. 2667-Q of 2020 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 02, 2020 |
| Hearing Date |
Oct 21, 2020 |
| Decision |
The Islamabad High Court dismissed the writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, which sought the quashment of FIR No. 513 registered under Section 25-D of the Telegraph Act. The court held that the petitioner had an adequate alternate remedy available under Section 249-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) before the Magistrate. The court noted that the investigation into the FIR was still ongoing, and it would be premature to quash the FIR before the police could complete their investigation and submit the challan. The court emphasized that the powers under Article 199 cannot substitute the trial process, and the petitioner should avail the remedies available within the framework of the law. The petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any illegality or jurisdictional error in the registration of the FIR, which was deemed to be maintainable under the law. |
| Summary |
In the case before the Islamabad High Court, the petitioner, Khalid Nadeem Kiyani, sought the quashment of an FIR alleging that he had made threats via WhatsApp messages. The FIR was registered under Section 25-D of the Telegraph Act, 1885. The court assessed the maintainability of the petition in light of the existing investigation and noted that the matter pertained to allegations that could fall under cybercrime jurisdiction. The court reiterated that before the police could submit a challan, it was premature for the court to exercise discretion in quashing the FIR. The petitioner was advised to pursue an alternate remedy available under Section 249-A Cr.P.C. The decision highlighted the importance of allowing the police to complete their investigation and the role of the trial court in adjudicating the matter once proper evidence is presented. The judgment reinforced the principle that constitutional petitions are not a substitute for the trial process. This case emphasizes the significance of adhering to procedural norms and the importance of proper jurisdiction in criminal matters, especially in the context of allegations involving modern technology such as cyber threats. The court's ruling serves as a reminder of the necessity for due process and the legal remedies available to parties involved in criminal proceedings. |
| Court |
Islamabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
LUBNA SALEEM PERVEZ, JUSTICE
|
| Lawyers |
Mr. Imran Feroz Malik, Advocate for Petitioner,
Ajmal Raza Bhatti, Advocate for Complainant,
Ms. Abida Mukhtar Chaudhry, State Counsel for Respondents
|
| Petitioners |
KHALID NADEEM KIYANIS
|
| Respondents |
I.G. POLICE, ISLAMABAD, ETC.
|
| Citations |
2021 SLD 1988,
2021 PLJ 159
|
| Other Citations |
PLD 2013 SC 401,
2005 PCr.LJ 1681,
2016 PCr.LJ 693,
Raja Muhammad Nadeem VS The State (PLD 2020 SC 282),
Muhammad Ali VS Additional I.G. Faisalabad and others (PLD 2014 SC 753)
|
| Laws Involved |
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973,
Telegraphs Act, 1885
|
| Sections |
199,
25-D
|