ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday expressed strong displeasure over persistent practice of delayed FIR registration in Sindh and, while rejecting a jail petition, also cautioned police officials of contempt proceedings for any future defiance.

A two-judge Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, upheld the sentence of life imprisonment for a murder that occurred in District Dadu in 2012 while hearing the jail petition of Ali Raza Siyal.

The man had challenged the decision of Sindh High Court Larkana Circuit on Aug 24, 2023 which maintained his sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge-I/MCTC, Dadu.

“We observe with dismay, once again, the consistent practice of delayed registration of FIRs in the Province of Sindh,” regretted Justice Salahuddin Panhwar in a seven-page judgement adding that despite earlier directions and even after the Inspector General of Police Sindh, was called in attendance, the practice shows no sign of abating.

Bench orders provincial prosecutor general to furnish report on all murder cases from Jan 1, 2025 till date with time of occurrence and time of report

In the present case, the FIR was registered after a delay of more than three days, although information had been furnished the same night, the judgement regretted. It also recalled how the Supreme Court in the 2026 Muhammad Bux case had expressed its disappointment at this menace, particularly in Sindh and even had directed all Inspectors General of Police in Pakistan to ensure that there shall be a prompt registration of an FIR once an informant informs the officer in-charge of a police station, who was then duty-bound to register an FIR without causing any delay.

The Supreme Court also cited the Muhammad Bux judgement in which it was ruled that the criminal justice system had evolved and time was of the essence in the investigation of criminal matters.

The Muhammad Bux judgement had also observed that delays could result in the loss or deterioration of evidence more particularly forensic evidence, ultimately prejudicing the merits of the case.

Consequently, Justice Panhwar ordered the Prosecutor General, Sindh to furnish a report on all murder cases from Jan 1, 2025 till date, setting out the time of occurrence against the time of report District wise 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 court directed.

At the same time the judgement also ordered the Supreme Court Registrar to ensure that the Muhammad Bux judgement was translated into Sindhi for the understanding of the general public of Sindh and uploaded on the Supreme Court website.

“Let it be assured that any further defiance of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Muhammad Bux, from this date onwards, may invite proceedings for contempt against the Inspectors General of Police, the Superintendents of Police (Investigation) and the Sub-Divisional Police Officers concerned,” the judgement cautioned.

In addition, the judgement also recalled that the FIR in the present case carried the expression “Faryaadi”, which the Supreme Court in the Muhammad Bux case had also expressly discouraged since it depicted a colonial mindset.

In the Muhammad Bux case, the Supreme Court had observed that the term Faryaadi used in province of Sindh in police proceedings, originates from the Persian word ‘Faryad’, meaning cry, help or lamentation, as noted in Persian dictionary. …Needless to say that the citizen approaches the authorities as a matter of right and not as a matter of mercy, the judgement had emphasised.

Similarly, the phrase “Bakhidmat Janaab SHO” is a common salutation used in applications addressed to the Station House Officer (SHO). However, it also lacked legal backing and implies a subordinate tone.

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

Justice Panhwar noted that in the case at hand, the record itself demonstrated that the police had knowledge of a cognizable offence the same night and yet registered the FIR after more than three days.

When the record shows that the officer in charge, despite knowing a cognizable offence, delayed registration of an FIR, the trial court is competent and in a proper case obliged to notice that conduct and to proceed in accordance with law, including under Section 201 of the PPC if the ingredients are made out, refer the matter to the Inspector General of Police for departmental action, the judgement said.

“Henceforth, every trial court will, while administering justice, remain alive to any deliberate delay in lodgement of FIR. Where such delay is attributable to the police and is apparent from the record, it shall not be treated as a mere irregularity,” the Supreme Court ruled adding the trial court would record a finding on the cause of the delay and take such action as the law permits.

While concluding, the Supreme Court dismissed the jail petition since it found no ground for the grant of leave.

Published in Dawn, September 19th, 2026