Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as Criminal Miscelleneous 212/2026 (SHC). In this matter between Criminal Miscelleneous 212/2026 (S.B.) Mst. Hajiani and SSP Umerkot & others Sindh High Court, Circuit Court, Mirpur Khas, 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.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: CITATION: PARTIES: ORDER DATE: BENCH: A.F.R: ------------------------------------------------------------ IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT AT MIRPURKHAS

Criminal Misc. Application No.S-212 of 2026

Applicant : Mst. Hajiani daughter of Abdul Raheem. Through Mr. Satram Sonani Bheel, Advocate.

Respondents : S.S.P, Umerkot & 06 others Through Mr. Neel Parkash, D.P.G

Date of hearing : 23.07.2026 Date of order : 23.07.2026

O R D E R. Khalid Hussain Shahani, J. —Applicant invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court, calling in question order dated 12.05.2026, whereby the learned Sessions Judge/Ex -Officio Justice of Peace, Umerkot, declined the applicant's request under Sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. for registration of an F.I.R. 2. The applicant alleges that police officials in plain cloth es unlawfully entered her house without a search warrant or a lady constable, broke open an iron box and almirah, and made away with a gold khara and Rs.50,000/- cash upon being disturbed by neighbours. Learned counsel submits that these grave allegations were dismissed hastily, rendering the impugned order illegal and irregular, and prays for directions to register an F.I.R. and grant protection. 3. Learned D.P.G. opposes the petition, submitting that the applicant and her family are habitual litigants w ith extensive

2

criminal antecedents who misuse such applications to harass police officials. 4. The question for determination is whether the impugned order suffers from illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error. 5. The jurisdiction under Sectio ns 22-A and 22 -B, Cr.P.C. is supervisory, not adjudicatory. It permits examination of whether a cognizable offence is prima facie disclosed and whether police have unlawfully failed in their duty, nothing more. It does not authorize resolution of disputed facts or assessment of competing evidence, which properly belongs to a trial court. 6. Here, the allegations rest entirely on unsubstantiated assertions. Despite claiming that neighbours gathered at the scene, the applicant has produced no independent wi tness statement, nor any material establishing ownership or existence of the articles allegedly taken. Such disputed questions demand evidence and trial, the matters outside the scope of Sections 22 - A and 22-B proceedings. 7. The applicant's undisputed h istory of prior criminal involvement, while not conclusive against her, is a relevant factor counselling caution before directing an F.I.R. on unverified allegations alone. The Ex-Officio Justice of Peace was justified in exercising such caution. 8. The impugned order reflects due consideration of the allegations, police report, and surrounding circumstances. No

3

misreading, non -reading, jurisdictional defect, or material irregularity has been shown. Mere disagreement with the conclusion below is not a gro und for interference under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. 9. Where allegations involve seriously disputed facts, the proper remedy is a direct complaint under Section 200, Cr.P.C., which provides a forum for evidence and adjudication. Sections 22-A and 22-B cannot substitute for a criminal trial. 10. For these reasons, the impugned order is found to be in accordance with law, free of illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional defect. The application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The applicant remains a t liberty to pursue a direct complaint under Section 200, Cr.P.C. before the competent Court. JUDGE

"Adnan Ashraf Nizamani"

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Sindh High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant