ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday expressed strong displeasure over delays in the registration of first information reports (FIRs) in Sindh, cautioning police officials that they could face contempt proceedings over any future delays.

A two-judge SC bench, comprising Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, upheld the life sentence of a man convicted of a 2012 murder in Sindh’s Dadu district while hearing the jail petition of Ali Raza Siyal, who had challenged the Sindh High Court’s Aug 24, 2023, Circuit Bench at Larkana judgment upholding his sentence.

“We observe with dismay, once again, the consistent practice of delayed registration of FIRs in the province of Sindh,” Justice Salahuddin Panhwar observed in a seven-page judgment, adding that despite earlier directions — and even after the Sindh inspector general had appeared before the court — the practice showed no sign of abating.

In this case, the FIR was registered after a delay of more than three days. Although information had been furnished the same night, the judgment expressed regret and recalled that it had called these delays out in the 2026 Muhammad Bux case.

The court had directed all inspectors general of police in Pakistan to ensure the prompt registration of an FIR once the officer in charge of a police station was informed about an incident, noting that the officer was duty-bound to register the FIR without delay.

The SC also cited the Muhammad Bux judgment, which held that the criminal justice system had evolved and that time was of the essence in the investigation of criminal matters. It further observed that delays could result in the loss or deterioration of forensic evidence, ultimately prejudicing the merits of a case.

Consequently, Justice Panhwar ordered the Sindh prosecutor general to furnish a report on all murder cases from Jan 1, 2025, to date, setting out the time of occurrence against the time of reporting and identifying cases in which the FIR was registered after 24 hours.

“The report will be submitted within two months for perusal in our chambers,” the judgment directed.

At the same time, the judgment directed the SC registrar to ensure that the Muhammad Bux judgment was translated into Sindhi for the understanding of the general public in Sindh and uploaded to the court’s website.

“Let it be assured that any further defiance of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Muhammad Bux, from this date onwards, may invite contempt proceedings against the inspectors general of police, the superintendents of police (investigation) and the concerned sub-divisional police officers,” the judgment cautioned.

Additionally, the judgment also recalled that the FIR in the present case carried the expression “faryaadi”, which the apex court in the Muhammad Bux judgment had also expressly discouraged since it depicted a colonial mindset.

In the Muhammad Bux case, the apex court observed that the term “faryaadi”, used in police proceedings in Sindh, originated from the Persian word “faryad”, meaning cry, help or lamentation, as noted in the Persian dictionary.

“Needless to say that the citizen approaches the authorities as a matter of right and not as a matter of mercy,” the judgment emphasised.

Similarly, the phrase ‘bakhidmat janaab SHO’ was a common salutation used in applications addressed to the station house officer (SHO) and also lacked legal backing and implied a subordinate tone.

“We concur that it’s actually the SHO, who serves the citizens, not the other way around,” the Supreme Court ruled.

Justice Panhwar noted that, in the case at hand, the record itself demonstrated that the police had knowledge of a cognisable offence on the same night but did not register an FIR until more than three days later.

“When the record discloses that the officer in charge, knowing of a cognisable offence, delayed registration of an FIR, the trial court is competent and, in a proper case, obliged to take notice of that conduct and proceed in accordance with law, including under Section 201 of the PPC if the ingredients are made out, and to refer the matter to the inspector general of police for departmental action,” the judgment added.

It further said that every trial court would be aware of any deliberate delay in the filing of an FIR. Where such a delay was attributable to the police and apparent from the record, it would not be treated as a “mere irregularity”, the SC ruled, adding that the trial court would record a finding on the cause of the delay and take such action as the law permits.

In conclusion, the apex court dismissed the jail petition, finding no ground for granting leave.

Last September, the SC ruled that no reason could justify the dereliction of the mandatory statutory duty of the police, as violations would erode public trust in the criminal justice system.

A three-judge bench of the apex court, comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Panhwar, also noted that the registration of an FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was exclusively an executive function and that violation of the statutory duty has profound consequences for the parties involved in a criminal case.

“A dysfunctional criminal justice system for citizens who are not privileged or powerful manifests [a] lack of constitutional governance. The onus is on the respective governments to establish that every citizen is dealt with in accordance with the obligation enshrined under Article 4 of the Constitution,” it added.