Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 SHC 3151
Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court
Petitioner: Const. P. 1000/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - Sher Alam Khan (Petitioner)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2025 SHC 3151. In this matter between Const. P. 1000/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - Sher Alam Khan (Petitioner) and the Respondent, 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: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Const. P. 1000/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi CITATION: 2025 SHC KHI 3151 PARTIES: Sher Alam Khan (Petitioner) ORDER DATE: 27-OCT-25 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ [1]
1
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Constitutional Petition No. S-1000 of 2025 (Sher Alam Khan v Province of Sindh & others) Date Order with signature of Judge(s)
1. For order on office objection Nos.1 to 4 alongwith reply as at ―A‖ 2. For hearing of main case
Date of hearing and order:- 27.10.2025
Mr. Raham Ali Rind advocate for the petitioner Mr. Jehaanzeb Aftab advocate for respondent Nos. 5 & 6. Mr. Ali Safdar Depar along with SIP/SHO Syed Abrar Hussain of PS Landhi. Raza Mian DSP, Legal II, CPO Karachi
--------------------------------
O R D E R
Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, J The petitioner sought protection against false cases allegedly filed by Respondents 1 to 4, who also forcibly took blank cheques and issued threats of dire conse quences, including harm to the petitioner’s family if he approached authorities. The petitioner stated that he had business relations with Respondents 5 and 6 for about three years, during which all financial dealings were settled with interest. However, R espondents 5 and 6 later demanded an additional illegal amount of Rs. 40 million based on a self - made agreement. The petitioner further reported that his son, Ameer Nawaz, has been missing since 22.08.2025, and a complaint has been lodged at P.S. Landhi. He fears for his son’s safety and holds Respondents 5 and 6 responsible if any harm occurs. Despite several complaints and applications for protection, no action has been taken by the authorities. 2. Learned counsel for the private respondents argued that t he petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has failed to avail alternate legal remedies available under the law. He further submitted that the petition is false, frivolous, and based on malicious intentions. The petitioner has no concern with Respon dents 5 and 6; rather, he is related to one Ameer Nawaz, who allegedly misappropriated Respondent No. 6’s investments and is now misusing legal proceedings through his relatives to harass the respondents. He argued that earlier, Sarwar Khan (father of Ameer Nawaz) filed C.P. No. 824/2025 against these respondents, which was disposed of on 29.09.2025. During its pendency, he also lodged FIR No. 596/2025 at P.S. Landhi regarding his son’s disappearance against ―unknown persons,‖ despite previously accusing th e respondents —showing clear malafide intent. He next argued that paragraphs 5 to 7 of the present petition are misleading and false. The petition has been filed with unclean hands merely to harass and malign the respondents and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed in limine. In view
[2]
2
of the foregoing, he prayed that the petition be dismissed in limine with exemplary costs. If this the stance of the respondents, the Articles 4 & 9 of the constitution provide protection of life and liberty in such circumsta nces the Supreme Court allowed protective action even if alternate remedies exist due to urgency. Primarily the superior Courts can intervene in cases of coercion or threats even if other remed ies are theoretically available, therefore the objections are repelled. 3. Learned APG submitted that the Inspector General of Police (IGP) Sindh has constituted a committee, vide letter dated 24.10.2025, in co mpliance with the order dated 29 .09.2025 passed by this Court in C.P. No. 824 of 2025. The committee comprises the following officers: Mr. M. Azad Khan, PSP, Additional IGP Karachi – Chairman Dr. Farrukh Ali, PSP, DIG Karachi Range – Member Mr. Amjad Ahmed Shaikh, SSP Karachi Range – Member
4. He submitted that the committee has been tasked to examine the matte r as directed by this Court’s order dated 29.09.2025 in C.P. No. 824 of 2025 and submit its report. Be that as it may, after hearing the parties, if anyone is found guilty, appropriate action should be recommended in accordance with the law. However, this direction shall not be ignored at all. 5. This Court is of the view that the police must act strictly in accordance with law and not serve as instruments of private harassment. Harassment or misuse of authority by State officials violates fundamental right s under Articles 4 and 9 of the Constitution. False FIRs and misuse of investigative powers constitute abuse of process and warrant disciplinary action. This Court warns that any violation of these directions may lead to contempt proceedings under Article 204 of the Constitution. However, in the present case, no harassment shall be caused, and every action of the police shall be subject to the law. 6. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. A copy of this order shall be sent to the IGP Sindh t o ensure that the police act lawfully, refrain from harassment, and conduct any lawful inquiries or raids with due respect to citizens and their families. The subject report must be furnished to this court in time.
JUDGE
Shafi