Case Judgement J girani and others PLO 2016 SC 55 rel. Muhammad Farooq v. Ahmed Nawaz a Abdul Moiz JafTary for Applicant. . Raj Ali Wahid Kunwar for Respondents. . G neral for Federation of Pakistan. Muhammad Ahmed, Assistant Attorney e Date of hearing: 9th May, 2023. ORDER OMAR SlAL, J.-Asad Ali Toor ("Mr. Toor"), the applicanttherei:h~n;:ir~n: k' . . p k'stan who also opera es a . . . . 't d ("Axact") the • a I j • and electromc media JOumahst wor mg and the video sharing service, YouTube Mis. Axact (Pri~ate) Lim,~ . p k'sta; 1 answering respondent, is a company limited by shares, incorporate '" ; 8 09 2022 0 engaged in the business of Infonnation Technology. Mr. Toor, ~ uploaded a video on his YouTube channel, which 2 employees workmg or xac 22 claimed, defamed Axact A direct private complaint bearing number 4597_of20 was filed by Axact before the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi Soufh. The 5 learned trial court registered the complaint under sections 499, 500, 502-A and 50 P.P.C. on 09.11.2022. Mr. Toor, being aggrieved by such a registration, has now approached this Court. m fi A ; 2. Learned counsel, representing Mr. Toor, has argued that the court in Karachi did not have jurisdiction and in any case neither was what Mr. Toor uploaded, directed towards Axact nor was what he said defamatory. Learned counsel for Axact was of the view that the courts in Karachi did have jurisdiction and that as the trial court had taken cognizance of the complaint, Mr. Toor should approach the trial court for the redressal of his grievance. My decision in this matter is not based on the territorial jurisdictional issue which the counsels have argued and hence for the sake of brevity no further discussion is made on this aspect of the counsels' arguments. Learned Assistant Attorney General supported the impugned order. I have heard all counsel. My observations and findings are as follows. 3. One of the cases which Mr. Raj Ali Wahid, representing Axact, has relied upon in his argument is an unreported order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled FIA through Director General, F.I.A. and others v. Syed Hamad Ali Shah (C.P. 1257 of 2020). In particular, in this order, learned counsel has relied on paragraph 4 of the order. The essence of the observation made in this paragraph is that the High Court does not have power under section 561-A Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR or an investigation proceedings. Reliance on a few lines of the order without looking at the thought of the Court holistically would not be appropriate. While relying on the first few lines of paragraph 4, the learned counsel did not emphasize that the Court itself also gave a reason for the High Court not to do so. In order to facilitate reference, it would be, appropriate to quote what the Court said: "This is because jurisdiction of a High Court to make an appropriate order under Section 561-A Cr.P .C. necessary to secure the ends of justice, can only be exercised with regard to the judicial or court proceedings and not relating to any other authority or department, such as FIR. registration or investigation http://www.plsbeta.com/Law0nline/1aw/content21.asp?Casedes=2024K3045 11/7/2024 8:51:44 AM