In Brief
A man (Zunaid) lodged an FIR alleging his family was attacked by armed individuals. After the police filed a closure report, Zunaid filed a protest petition; the Magistrate rejected the police report and proceeded with the petition, recording witness statements before issuing summons. The High Court allowed the accused to amend their challenge four years later and quashed the Magistrate's orders. The Supreme Court held that the Magistrate properly exercised his discretion and that the High Court erred in permitting the delayed amendment and interfering with lawful orders. The Court reaffirmed that a Magistrate has three options when receiving a police report and can proceed with a protest petition independently of the police conclusion.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.