Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 IHC 219940
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: Muhammad Azeem Mirza vs Learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace etc
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2025 IHC 219940. In this matter between Muhammad Azeem Mirza and Learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace etc, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Islamabad High Court (Honourable Mr. Justice Muhammad Asif) AUTHOR JUDGE: Honourable Mr. Justice Muhammad Asif DECISION DATE: 22-MAY-2025 CASE NO: Writ Petition-1157-2025 CITATION: 2025 IHC 219940 PARTIES: Muhammad Azeem Mirza VS Learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace etc LAW / SECTION: - SUBJECT: Police/FIA Matter, Registeration of Criminal Case REMARKS: Against dismissal of application U/s 22A for registration of FIR ============================================================ ORDER SHEET ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. W.P. No. 1157 of 2025 Muhammad Azeem Mirza
Vs.
Learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, etc. S. No. of order/ proceedings Date of order/ proceedings Order with signature of Judge and that of parties or counsel where necessary. 22.05.2025. Mr.Akhlaq Hussain, Advocate for petitioner. Ms. Sumaira Khursheed, State Counsel with Azhar, S.I. Police Station, Karachi Company, Islamabad.
MUHAMMAD ASIF, J. Through the instant petition, the petitioner has impugned the Order dated 07.01.2025 ("Impugned Order") passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Islamabad -West /Ex- Officio Justice of Peace, Islamabad -West ("the Respondent No. 1 "), whereby the application under Section 22 -A & B Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned Order is ex -facie illegal, unlawful, contrary to the facts on record, and thus not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is contended that Respondent No. 1 failed to appreciate the submissions raised in the petition and, while solely relying upon the report submitted by Respondent No. 2, dismissed the application of the Petitioner in a summary manner. It is further submitted that the proposed accused was employed by the Petitioner’s company , vide appointment letter dated 2 W.P. No. 1157 of 2025 Muhammad Azeem Mirza v. JOP, etc. 28.02.2023, whereas the relevant project commenced on 01.05.2022. Subsequently, in response to a demand by the Military Engineering Services (MES) department, the Petitioner’s company issued a power of attorney in favour of the proposed accused, in the format provided by the Commandant Office. Upon discovering f inancial irregularities and embezzlement allegedly committed by the proposed accused, the Petitioner’s company promptly initiated legal proceedings and terminated the services of the proposed accused , vide termination letter dated 01.11.2023, copies of whi ch were duly communicated to the concerned department for their information. Per learned counsel contents of the application sufficiently disclose the commission of a cognizable offence by the proposed accused. However, Respondent No. 1, relying solely on the police report, erroneously dismissed the petition without proper appreciation of the material placed on record. Moreover, while dismissing the application, Respondent No. 1 also rendered findings on the issue of jurisdiction, despite the fact that the Petitioner had earlier approached Police Station Lohi Bher, where SOPs were prepared, and the matter was subsequently referred to Police Station Karachi Company on the grounds of jurisdiction. It is pertinent to mention that the principal office of the Petitioner’s company is situated in Islamabad, and all business transactions and operations are conducted from Islamabad. The alleged embezzlement by the proposed accused is evidenced by his failure to produce any documentary proof during the audit, except fo r an Excel sheet, which is not corroborated by the company’s official record. The proposed accused persistently failed 3 W.P. No. 1157 of 2025 Muhammad Azeem Mirza v. JOP, etc. to furnish any substantive documents to establish his innocence. Conversely, the Petitioner’s company has placed on record incriminating material, including bank statements from the year 2022 –2023, which clearly demonstrate the financial discrepancies. However, Respondent No. 1 failed to consider such material evidence before passing the impugned Order. Therefore, the instant petition may be allowed. 3. The learned State counsel repelled the above submissions and argued that the Order impugned by the petitioner is a well-reasoned Order, and the SSP, Islamabad, has also submitted his report in the instant matter. As per the report, no cognizable offence has been made out , therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Arguments heard, record perused. 5. Perusal of the record reveals that the Petitioner is the proprietor of a construction company, duly engaged in various con tractual projects with the Military Engineering Services (MES), with multiple contracts currently underway in different cities across Pakistan. During the fiscal year 2022 –2023, one such contract pertaining to the construction of barracks and apartments for the Pakistan Army at Garyal Camp, Murree, was in progress. In connection with this project, Respondent No. 4 was deputed by the Petitioner as the Site In - charge. During the course of the project, Respondent No. 4 transferred a sum of Rs. 39,935,000/ - from the company's account to his personal account through online transactions. In addition, cheques amounting to Rs. 3,945,000/ - were also encashed by the said 4 W.P. No. 1157 of 2025 Muhammad Azeem Mirza v. JOP, etc. Respondent. Despite these substantial disbursements, Respondent No. 4 failed to make the requisite payments to the building material suppliers. The matter came to the attention of the Petitioner when suppliers of construction materials directly approached him with complaints of non -payment. Consequently, the Petitioner ordered a comprehensive audit of all ongoing projects being executed under the company’s name, Mectech International. During the course of said audit, Respondent No. 4 was asked to provide relevant documents and supporting records; however, he failed to produce the same. Upon further scrutiny of the financial and project records, it was discovered that Respondent No. 4 had fraudulently embezzled an amount totaling Rs. 20,000,000/ -. In immediate response to this discovery, the Petitioner took action by halting all further payments to Respondent No. 4 and instructed all concerned not to engage in any further dealings with him. A formal intimation to this effect was issued to the Garrison Engineer (Army), Murree, through a letter dated 01.11.2023. It is submitted that Respondent No. 4 was entrusted with the responsibility of making various payments, including Rs. 7,000,000/ - to construction material suppliers, staff salaries, and other market liabilities. However, he failed to discharge these obligations and misappropriated the funds, there by causing substantial financial loss to the Petitioner’s company. 6. The petitioner filed an application under Section 22-A & B Cr.P.C for registration of FIR against the respondent No. 4 wich was turn down with the following observations:- 5 W.P. No. 1157 of 2025 Muhammad Azeem Mirza v. JOP, etc. “4. The petiti oner claimed that the proposed accused was employed in his company as a site in -charge; however, he, alongwith his application submitted before this Court, failed to provide Any proof of the prposed accused’s employement. Moreover, the audit report attache d by the petitioner with his application under consideration is completely silent about the status of the proposed accused as a company employee as well as the alleged embezzlement committed by him. Additionally, in the absence of sufficient material on re cord, the petitoner’s stance regarding the proposed accused extracting money from the company’s account by himself and then misappropriating it seems quite flimsy. This likely reasons for the calimed reluctance on the part of the police.” 7. As per the rep ort submitted by the Superintendent of Police (Complaints), Islamabad, it has been stated that Respondent No. 4 was engaged as an independent contractor and not as an employee of the petitioner’s company, as erroneously asserted by the petitioner. Any payments received by Respondent No. 4 were made pursuant to a contractual arrangement and were duly acknowledged with the petitioner’s signature. Moreover, the subject matter lies outside the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station G -9, as all contractual w ork was carried out within the territorial limits of Murree and Azad Jammu & Kashmir. It is further noted that prior to the filing of the present application, the petitioner had submitted an application for registration of FIR at Police Station Lohi Bher, which was subsequently withdrawn by the petitioner himself. Resultantly, no cognizable offence is made out, and therefore, the matter does not warrant the registration of an FIR. 6 W.P. No. 1157 of 2025 Muhammad Azeem Mirza v. JOP, etc. 8. Nothing is palced on record , which may substantiate the petitioner’s conte ntion for the registration of an FIR, the report filed by the police, also emerges that no cognizable offence is made out from the facts and circumstances presented. 9. In view of the foregoing , no illegality or irregularity has been found in the Impugned Order. Resultantly, the instant petition is dismissed.
(MUHAMMAD ASIF) JUDGE **//Kamran//**