Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 IHC 219942
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: Robina Akhter vs ASJ etc
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2025 IHC 219942. In this matter between Robina Akhter and ASJ 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-789-2025 CITATION: 2025 IHC 219942 PARTIES: Robina Akhter VS ASJ etc LAW / SECTION: - SUBJECT: Police/FIA Matter, Other REMARKS: Accused's wife in an FIR, filed a 22A for fair and transparent inquiry into the matter. the matter was disposed. Impugns order. ============================================================ ORDER SHEET ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. W.P. No. 789 of 2025 Mst. Robina Akhtar
Vs.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge/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. Tariq Muhammad Khan Marwat, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Zubair Shah, Advocate for the respondents. Ms. Sumaira Khursheed, State Counsel with Pervaiz Khan , S.I. Police Station, Sabzi Mandi , Islamabad.
MUHAMMAD ASIF, J. Through the instant petition, the petitioner has impugned the Order dated 04.01.2025 ("Impugned Order") passed by the learned Additional Disrict and Sessions Judge, Islamabad -West /Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Islamabad -West ("the Respondent No. 1 "), whereby the application under Section 22 -A 6 (iii) Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned Order is contrary to law and the facts of the case, and as such, is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the local police of Police Station Sabzi Mandi registered FIR No. 761/2024 under Section 9 (1) 6 -C, which evidently demonstrates malafide intent on the part of the said police officials. It is further submitted that the petitioner had submitted a formal 2 W.P. No. 1157 of 2025 Muhammad Azeem Mirza v. JOP, etc. application before the senior police autho rities seeking transfer of the investigation of FIR No. 761/2024, as well as initiation of legal action against the concerned police officer for unlawfully registering a criminal case against the petitioner’s husband. However, the said application was not entertained by the authorities concerned. It is also submitted that following the arrest of the petitioner’s husband in connection with the aforementioned FIR, he approached the learned Trial Court for post -arrest bail, which was duly granted by the learne d Additional District & Sessions Judge, Islamabad, vide order dated 10.10.2024. The learned counsel further argued that Respondents No. 2 and 4 failed to conduct a fair and impartial inquiry in relation to the instant FIR, as the subordinates of Respondent No. 2 are directly implicated in acts of abuse of authority, having acted unlawfully and in excess of their powers with the objective of harassing, pressuring, and blackmailing the petitioner and her husband. It is maintained that the respondents’ conduct in failing to investigate the matter in accordance with law is patently illegal. The Investigating Officer is under a legal obligation to carry out the investigation in a fair, impartial, and timely manner, and to bring the real facts on record so that th e case may be adjudicated on its merits. However, in the instant case, the respondents have exercised their authority in excess of their lawful jurisdiction. Lastly, it is submitted that Respondent No. 1, while passing the impugned Order, failed to appreci ate the facts of the case and the material available on record. Hence, the instant petition. 3. The learned State counsel assisted by counsel for the respondent s repelled the above submissions and 3 W.P. No. 1157 of 2025 Muhammad Azeem Mirza v. JOP, etc. argued that the Order impugned passed by the Respondent No. 1 is a well-reasoned, and the SP, Islamabad, has also submitted his report in the instant matter, wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner’s husband is habitual offender and multiple FIRs are registered against him, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Arguments heard, record perused. 5. Perusal of the record reveals that on 12.09.2024, at about 8:30 pm the petitioner’s husband was present at a mosque situated near his residence in Sector I -10/2, Islamabad. After offering Isha prayer, as he exited the mosque, he was forcibly abducted by an individual wearing brown dress, accompanied by two other persons riding motorcycles and dressed in police uniforms. The incident occurred in the presence of several local residents and was sub sequently captured on CCTV footage from cameras installed at the location, which forms part of the record. One of the local residents immediately informed the police by dialling emergency number 15, upon which police officials arrived at the scene. The pet itioner then lodged a complaint against unknown perpetrators, and the matter was taken up by Police Station Sabzi Mandi, Islamabad. It is further revealed that after a lapse of approximately four hours from the time of the incident, the Investigating Officer/Respondent No. 6 informed the petitioner that her husband was in police custody, having been arrested in connection with FIR No. 761/2024 dated 12.09.2024, registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, at Police Station Sabzi Mandi, 4 W.P. No. 1157 of 2025 Muhammad Azeem Mirza v. JOP, etc. wherein it was alleged that 1330 grams of charas had been recovered from his possession. Upon learning of her husband's arrest in the aforementioned case, the petitioner approached the office of Respondent No. 2 and submitted an application re questing a fair and impartial inquiry into the incident and also sought transfer of the investigation to an unbiased officer. The application was marked to the Deputy Superintendent of Police/Respondent No. 5. However, during the course of proceedings, the Investigating Officer, ASI Pervaiz Khan, used abusive and inappropriate language toward the petitioner, subjected her to harassment, and issued threats of implicating her husband in further false and frivolous criminal cases. 6. The petitioner submitted an application under Section 22-A Cr.P.C, seeking registration of an FIR before Respondent No. 1. In response, the local police submitted their written comments, wherein they categorically stated that the petitioner’s husband is a habitual offender involv ed in multiple narcotics -related cases and is presently confined in judicial custody at Central Jail Adyala, Rawalpindi, in connection with FIR No. 761/2024 dated 12.09.2024, registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. It was further alleged that the petitioner is attempting to misuse the process of law by filing false, frivolous, and baseless applications in order to obstruct lawful proceedings. 7. That Respondent No. 1, after hearing the arguments advanced by both partie s, disposed of the 5 W.P. No. 1157 of 2025 Muhammad Azeem Mirza v. JOP, etc. petition vide order dated 30.10.2024 with the following observations:- “As per law whenever a person approaches the SHO, he is duty bound to pay due attention to his grievance and, in case, commission of a congnizable offence is made out, the SHO (respondent No. 1 in the instant petition) is required to proceed strictly in terms of section 154 Cr.P.C. If otherwise, he has to proeed as per section 155 or 157 Cr.P.C. As obvious from the record, the petitioner has already narrated the occurance, while the respondent No. 1 has failed to take action on her application. 6. In view of above, the SHO Sabzi Mandi is required to proceed on the application of the petitioner without any delay.” 8. That despite the issuance of clear and unambiguous directions to the concerned SHO, the said officer willfully failed to comply with the order passed by Respondent No. 1. Being aggrieved by such non - compliance, the petitioner once again approached Respondent No. 1 by filing a petition unde r Section 22 - A(6)(iii) of the Cr.P.C seeking implementation of the earlier order dated 30.10.2024. Respondent No. 1, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering the arguments advanced, again disposed of the said petition vide Impugned Order with the following observations: 5. I have also carefully gone through the record. Perusal of the report dated 29.11.2024 submitted by the SHO P.S. Sabzi Mandi reflects that police Authorities have conducted proper proceedings on the applicat ion submitted by Mst. Robeena Akhtar. On the orders of SDPO Industrial Area, Inquiry No, 351/cc was conducted by the police. No substance for the further proceedings in the light of the report were required. Hence, the application filed by the Mst. Robeena Akhtar was consigned to record. According to the report her husband is habitual offender. He is involved in multiple cases of Narcotics in different Police Stations and the applicant is trying to exert pressure on the prosecution for extending undue benef its to her husband in criminal cases. 6. For the foregoing in my considerable opinion, in the light of report submitted by the SHO, no further proceeding on 6 W.P. No. 1157 of 2025 Muhammad Azeem Mirza v. JOP, etc. the application submitted by the Mst. Robeena Akhtar are required. As such, the application stands disposed of. 9. A conjoint reading of both the orders passed by Respondent No. 1 reveals that they are mutually contradictory and inconsistent with each other. It appears that Respondent No. 1 failed to apply his judicial mind while pas sing the order dated 30.10.2024, and upon the petitioner’s subsequent approach seeking implementation of the said order, Respondent No. 1, without any cogent justification, altered his stance and proceeded to pass the Impugned Or der, which is in direct contradiction to the earlier directive and create serious dents and doubts in the matter. 10. In light of Section 154 Cr.P.C., the Officer Incharge of a police station is legally bound to record information regarding a cognizable offence in the prescribed register, previously known as the First Information Report (FIR). The mere registration of an FIR does not, in any manner, limit the authority of the investigating officer to probe the veracity of the information provided. If, during the investigation, th e officer concludes that the allegations against the accused are false, concocted, or baseless, and no supporting evidence is found, the officer may lawfully recommend the release of the accused under Section 169 Cr.P.C. and place the accused's name in Col umn No. 2 of the final report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C., thereby suggesting discharge from the charges. However, it must be emphasized that neither the Officer In-charge nor any other authority has the discretion to refuse to reduce into writing any information relating to the commission of a 7 W.P. No. 1157 of 2025 Muhammad Azeem Mirza v. JOP, etc. cognizable offence in the register maintained under Section 154 Cr.P.C. 11. In view of the foregoing, the instant petition is allowed and the Impugned Order dated 04.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,Islamabad-West/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is hereby set aside. The Station House Officer (SHO) concerned is directed to register an FIR against the proposed accused persons forthwith and submit a copy of the FIR with the Deputy Registrar (Ju dicial) of this Court.
(MUHAMMAD ASIF) JUDGE **//Kamran//**