Mst. Razia Bibi Vs ASJ Sheikhupura etc.

Form No. HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W.P.No.1185 of 2026 Mst. Razia Bibi Versus Additional Sessions Judge, etc.

S.No.of order / Date of Order with signature of Judge, and that of parties counsel, where Proceeding Order/ necessary Proceeding

08.09.2026. Mr. Kamran Ashraf Mughal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Muhammad Nasir Chohan, Addl. Advocate General. Mr. Khalil Ahmed Bhatti, Advocate for respondent No.5.

Through the instant constitutional petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, whereby the criminal revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhupura, was dismissed.

2.Arguments heard and record perused.

3.Perusal of record reveals that a criminal case vide FIR No.222/2014 dated 04.03.2014 was registered at Police Station Bhikhi, District Sheikhupura, in respect of the murder of Muhammad Islam for an offence under section 302 PPC. During investigation, the police remained unable to trace the alleged culprits and, consequently, an untraced report was prepared and submitted before the learned trial Court. Thereafter, the complainant, being dissatisfied with the outcome of the police investigation, instituted a private complaint in respect of the same occurrence for offences under sections 302, 201 and 161 PPC read with section 155- C of the Police Order, 2002. The said private complaint was admitted, and accused namely Mehboob Akhtar, Mst. Mafia Akhtar, Mst. Razia and Hamayun, Sub-Inspector, were summoned to face trial by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Sheikhupura, vide order dated 16.06.2025. During the pendency of the aforesaid private complaint, the complainant approached the learned Judicial Magistrate by filing an application seeking a direction to the police to investigate the matter relating to the murder of Muhammad Islam in FIR No.222/2014. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after hearing the parties and perusing the record, observed that the police, being the investigating agency, is duty-bound to investigate the matter and, while accepting the application, directed the respondents to investigate the matter fairly, impartially, honestly and strictly in accordance with law. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the said order before the learned Additional Sessions Judge through criminal revision. The learned revisional Court, after examining the record, dismissed the revision, primarily on the ground that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate was administrative in nature and, therefore, could not be assailed through criminal revision. The learned revisional Court further observed that the pendency of a private complaint did not, by itself, bar the police from exercising its statutory power to further investigate the matter.

4.The first question which requires determination is whether the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate was amenable to criminal revisional jurisdiction. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate makes it abundantly clear that no finding of guilt or innocence was recorded, no accused was acquitted or convicted, no evidence was appreciated and no adjudication affecting the substantive rights of the parties was made. The learned Magistrate merely directed the police to investigate the matter fairly, impartially, honestly and strictly in accordance with law. The nature and substance of an order has to be examined rather than its nomenclature. An order which merely facilitates or regulates the exercise of statutory investigative functions, without adjudicating upon the

criminal liability of any person, cannot be converted into a judicial order merely because it emanates from a Magistrate. The learned Judicial Magistrate, while passing the impugned direction, did not assume the role of an investigating officer nor did he undertake the investigation himself. The direction was confined to requiring the police to perform its statutory function in accordance with law. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has, therefore, rightly examined the nature of the order and concluded that the same was administrative/supervisory in character and was not amenable to criminal revisional jurisdiction. The mere fact that certain persons have already been summoned in the private complaint also does not render the police investigation legally incompetent. The identity of an accused, the nature of his involvement, the evidentiary material available against him and the circumstances attending the occurrence are matters which may legitimately form part of an investigation. What is prohibited is not investigation as such, but an investigation conducted contrary to law or for the purpose of prejudicing the pending judicial proceedings. No such circumstance has been demonstrated before this Court. At this stage, it is also important to observe that the direction of the learned Judicial Magistrate cannot be construed as an expression of opinion regarding the truthfulness of the allegations levelled by the complainant. The police remain under an obligation to collect material objectively and to proceed strictly in accordance with law. If, during investigation, the allegations are found to be unfounded, the investigating agency is equally bound to record the correct position in accordance with law. Likewise, if incriminating material is found, the same has to be dealt with in accordance with the applicable legal procedure. Thus, the impugned direction does not predetermine the result of the investigation. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has, therefore, correctly concluded that the impugned order of the

learned Judicial Magistrate was not a judicial determination amenable to criminal revision. The revisional Court has also independently examined the objection raised by the petitioner regarding the pendency of the private complaint and has rightly found no legal impediment in the direction issued to the police to perform its investigative function in accordance with law. The reliance placed by the learned revisional Court upon the judgment reported as Mian Ansar Hayat v. The State & 10 others (PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1128) also supports the proposition regarding the distinction between an administrative order and a judicial order for purposes of revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any legal principle or binding authority which would render the impugned direction of the learned Judicial Magistrate revisable merely because it was issued by a Magistrate. It is a settled principle that supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court is not to be exercised merely because another view is possible. Interference is warranted where the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, jurisdictional defect, perversity, misreading or non-reading of material available on record, or results in manifest miscarriage of justice. In the present case, no such defect has been pointed out which would justify interference with the concurrent orders of the Courts below.

5.For what has been discussed above, this Court finds that the learned Judicial Magistrate committed no illegality or jurisdictional error in directing the police to investigate the matter fairly, impartially, honestly and strictly in accordance with law. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also correctly declined to interfere with the said direction and has rightly held that the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, being administrative/supervisory in nature, was not amenable to criminal revision.

6.Consequently, finding no illegality, perversity, jurisdictional defect or miscarriage of justice in the impugned

orders, the instant petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. The orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhupura, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, are maintained.

(ABHER GUL KHAN)

Judge Approved for reporting

JUDGE

*Abdul Rehman *