Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 IHC 219972
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: Sheikh Raheel vs Justice of Peace
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2025 IHC 219972. In this matter between Sheikh Raheel and Justice of Peace, 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: 02-JUN-2025 CASE NO: Criminal Miscellaneous-967-2025 CITATION: 2025 IHC 219972 PARTIES: Sheikh Raheel VS Justice of Peace LAW / SECTION: - SUBJECT: Miscellaneous, REMARKS: Crl. Misc. U/s 561 against acceptance of 22A by Justice of Peace ============================================================ ORDER SHEET IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Crl. Misc No. 967 of 2025
Sheikh Raheel
v.
The State, etc.
S. No. of order/ proceedings Date of order/ Proceedings Order with signature of Judge and that of parties or counsel where necessary. 02.06.2025 Rana Abid Nazeer Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. Raja Waqar Riasat, Advocate for the respondents. Ch. Zulqarnain, State Counsel with Mansabdar, S.I.
MUHAMMAD ASIF, J : Through this petition, the petitioner impugns the Order dated 02.05.2025 (“Impugned Order” ) passed b y the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III /Ex-officio Justice of Peace, Islamabad- West whereby application under Section 22 -A and B Cr.P.C filed by the respondent No. 4 was allowed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order dated 02.05.2025 has been passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, which is in clear violation of the cardinal principle of natural justice audi-alteram-partem as it is a well -settled law that no person shall be condemned unheard; that the said order is contrary to both law and the facts of the case, and the learned Ex -Officio Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge -III (West), Islamabad, while passing the impugned order, failed to appreciate the actual and material facts on record; that Respondent No. 2, the Superintendent of Police, Complaint Cell, Islama bad, 2 W.P. No. 967 of 2025 Sheikh Raheel v. The State, etc. submitted a detailed report on 25.04.2025, wherein it is specifically mentioned that the son of Respondent No. 4 is involved in FIR No. 606/2024 registered under Sections 420, 468, and 471 PPC at Police Station Quaid -e-Azam Industrial Estate, Lahore. Furthermore, her brother, Imran, stands accused in FIR No. 940/2025 dated 22.01.2025 under Section 392 PPC at Police Station Kahna, Lahore, and he has been arrested in connection with the said case and was sent to judicial custody for the purpose of an identification parade on 23.04.2025; that the said report further discloses that a vehicle bearing Registration No. IDM-6971 was taken into police custody under Section 550 Cr.P.C. It was further argued that the application filed by Respondent No. 4 is false and baseless, yet the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge (West), Islamabad, did not consider the aforementioned material facts while passing the impugned order; that it is also a matter of great legal importance that individuals namely Ghazanfar Shahzad S/O Ali Bahadur, Ghulam Abbas S/O Muhammad Shafi, and Imran Khan S/O Ali Bahadur are habitual offenders and have defrauded innocent citizens. In this regard, FIR No. 1772/2023 dated 16.09.2023 under Section 489 -F PPC is already reg istered against the accused Ghulam Abbas at Police Station Defence, Lahore. Furthermore, FIR No. 606/2024 under Sections 420, 468, and 471 PPC at Police Station Quaid -e- Azam Industrial Estate, Lahore, is also on record against the said group of accused per sons; that the petitioner is actively pursuing these criminal cases. It is submitted that the instant complaint has been manipulated and the impugned order has been obtained by the accused persons through willful concealment of material facts, with the 3 W.P. No. 967 of 2025 Sheikh Raheel v. The State, etc. ulterior motive of shielding themselves from ongoing criminal proceedings in Lahore; t hat the learned trial court failed to properly examine the available record and passed the impugned order in a hasty and mechanical manner, resulting in a gross miscarriage of justice. The Impugned order suffers from material irregularities, including misreading and non -reading of relevant documents and facts, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 3. The learned State Counsel assisted by counsel for the Respondent No. 4 repelled the above submission and argued that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-West/Ex-officio Justice of Peace is a well - reasoned order which, requires no interference. Therefore, the instant petition for set ting aside the impugned order, is liable to be dismissed. 4. Arguments heard, record perused. 5. Perusal of the record reveals that on 10.04.2025 the respondent No. 4 made call at 15 and reported that some unknown persons in official uniform abducted her son. Respondent No. 4 initially submitted an application to Respondents No. 2 and 3, seeking the registration of a criminal case against the petitioner and others. Upon the alleged inaction and non -compliance by the said respondents in addressing the grievance, Respondent No. 4 subsequently filed an application under Section 22 -A, Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge - III/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, seeking directions for the registration of an FIR against the petitioner and others. Pursuant to t he said application, the learned Ex -Officio Justice of Peace called for comments/reports from 4 W.P. No. 967 of 2025 Sheikh Raheel v. The State, etc. Respondents No. 2 and 3 , and on the basis of the record, passed the impugned order. 6. As per the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police (Complaints), I slamabad, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex -Officio Justice of Peace, Islamabad, it has been stated that the complainant’s elder son has been arrested in a case FIR No. 606/2024, dated 19.04.2024, registered under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of PPC at Police Station Quaid -e-Azam Industrial Area, Lahore. Furthermore, the complainant’s younger son was arrested in FIR No. 940/2025, dated 22.01.2025, registered under Section 392 PPC at Police Station Kahna, Lahore, and is presently confined in judicial custody. 7. The police have also placed on record a copy of the discharge certificate pertaining to the complainant’s son, Imran Khan, in connection with FIR No. 940/2025. The police have taken the stance that during the identification parade proceedi ngs, neither the complainant nor the witness appeared before the Court to identify the complainant’s son. Consequently, an order for his release was passed. 8. Respondent No. 4 called at 15 on 10.04.2025 and duly reported the matter. However, the arrest of Respondent No. 4’s son was formally recorded on 23.04.2025. This unexplained delay from 10.04.2025 to 23.04.2025 gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that the son of Respondent No. 4 was held in unlawful custody by the proposed accused persons during t he intervening period and they misused their authority to harass, humiliate and threaten him. 5 W.P. No. 967 of 2025 Sheikh Raheel v. The State, etc. 9. It is an admitted fact that the respondent No. 4’s son was wrongfully detained by the police, which was a gross violation of fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. It is sufficient to note that the police officer unlawfully confined an innocent citizen in the lock -up of the po lice station, demonstrating blatant abuse of authority and disregard for the rule of law. Such conduct is wholly unacceptable and cannot be justified or overlooked. 10. In view of the foregoing, no illegality or irregularity has been found in the Impugned order dated 02.05.2025. Resultantly, the instant petition is dismissed.
(MUHAMMAD ASIF) JUDGE **//Kamran//**