Second FIR in Pakistan: Supreme Court Guidelines & Conflicting Judgments Exposed

Second FIR in Pakistan: Supreme Court Guidelines & Conflicting Judgments Exposed!”

Tags:
#SecondFIR #PakistanLaw #AntiMoneyLaundering #CrPC #SupremeCourtPakistan #FIRQuashing #LegalAnalysis #HighCourtCases #PLD2018SC595 #MoneyLaunderingAct

Description:
📜 Unravel the Legal Maze of Second FIRs in Pakistan!
This video dissects high-stakes court cases where Pakistan’s judiciary grapples with the legality of multiple FIRs on the same incident. Discover:

– 🚨 2023 Islamabad Case: Why the court refused to quash a second FIR under the Anti-Money Laundering Act (Sections 4 & 9) despite overlapping facts.
– ⚖️ 2024 Islamabad Judgment: How a second FIR was quashed for violating the Supreme Court’s Sughran Bibi precedent (PLD 2018 SC 595).
– 🔥 Contradictory Outcomes: When courts allow vs. reject second FIRs under CrPC Sections 154, 249-A, and corruption laws.
– 💼 Key Legal Principles: “Same transaction” test, burden of proof in money laundering, and police accountability.

2023 P Cr. L J 38 [Islamabad] Before Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, J

(d) Anti-Money Laundering Act (VII of 2010)—

—-Ss. 4 & 9—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 464, 468, 471 & 473—Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Quashing of second FIR—Money laundering, cheating, forgery, using forged documents and misconduct—Petitioner/accused was aggrieved of registration of second FIR under S. 4 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, on same facts—Petitioner/accused sought quashing of second FIR—Validity—Investigating officer in special crime was equipped with authority to attach any property on the basis of report in his possession received from concerned prosecuting agency or with prior permission of Court, if he reasonably believed that property involved in money laundering for a period not exceeding 180 days from the date of order—Even investigation mechanism was separately settled in S. 9 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010—Only those cases could be quashed, from which no offence was made out from bare reading of FIR or where there was no legal authority for registration of a criminal case or where registration of FIR was based upon mala fide and considered to be abuse of process of law and/or where no other alternate remedy was provided to deal with the situation raised in any criminal case—All such principles were not applicable in cases pertaining to Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, as money laundering was a distinct offence—Such cases required thorough probe and investigation qua predicate offences or property or proceeds of crime or property obtained by accused persons for which they had to discharge burden under Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010—High Court declined to quash second FIR as ground raised by petitioner for quashing of second FIR was not legally justiciable nor very registration of subsequent FIR under Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 was contrary to principles laid down by Supreme Court— Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Federation of Pakistan v. Haji Muhammad Sadiq PLD 2007 SC 133; Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State PLD 2018 SC 595; Syed Mukhtar Hussain Shah v. Mst. Saba Imtiaz PLD 2011 SC 260; Munir

2022 P Cr. L J 1050 [Lahore] Before Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J

TARIQ IRSHAD—Petitioner

Versus

SPECIAL JUDGE and others—Respondents

Criminal Revision No. 42994 of 2021, decided on 28th July, 2021.

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)—

—-S. 249-A—Power of Magistrate to acquit accused at any stage—Second FIR—Civil and criminal proceedings—Scope—Accused assails dismissal of his application under S. 249-A, Cr.P.C.—Counsel for accused contended that the instant FIR was replica of earlier FIR, which was quashed by the High Court; that second FIR on same facts was barred under the law; that civil proceedings between the parties were also pending; that both civil and criminal proceedings could not go side by side and requests for stay of criminal proceedings till the decision of civil litigation by declaring that criminal proceedings were dependent upon the outcome of civil litigation—Second FIR was based on entirely different facts and premise—Even the nature of documents was different; therefore, it could not be termed as replica or verbatim of earlier FIR—Second FIR was proceed-able under the law—Question of inheritance was pending before the civil court, if the proof failed, party would lose the inheritance, would be deprived of the property and nothing more—Even after a criminal trial, a civil action on the same cause of action was not barred; neither principle of res judicata was applied nor question of autrefois acquit, autrefois convict ( was dismissed accordingly.

of subsequent Investigating Officer to requisition attested copy of

source