Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 IHC 253960
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: FAZEELA ABBASI vs FOP, ETC
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2026 IHC 253960. In this matter between FAZEELA ABBASI and FOP, 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 Khadim Hussain Soomro) AUTHOR JUDGE: Honourable Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro DECISION DATE: 06-MAR-2026 CASE NO: Writ Petition-9-2026 CITATION: 2026 IHC 253960 PARTIES: FAZEELA ABBASI VS FOP, ETC LAW / SECTION: under Section 154 Cr.P.C. | under section 156 of the Cr.P.C |under Section 30(3) | under Section 32 of the Act | SUBJECT: Miscelleneous, Other REMARKS: Petitioner is a dermatologist. FIA has lodged FIR agaisnt her under 28, 20 IHRA and 5 PCA for unregistered and sporious damages sale at Clinic . Seeks Quashment of FIR and suspension of proceedings. ============================================================ JUDGMENT SHEET IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD. (JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)
W.P. No. 09/2026 Fazeela Abbasi Versus Federation of Pakistan, etc.
Petitioner by: M/s S. Naeem Bokhari and Nasir Mehmood, Advocates.
Respondents by: Mr. Sarfraz Rauf, AAG Mr. Naveed Raza Mughal, Advocate for complainant. Barrister Bilal Naseer, Advocate for CDA. Dr. Suleman, D.D. IHRA. Muhammad Sharif Bandeshah, S.O Law, IHRA. M. Afzal Khan Niazi, D.D. FIA. M. Riaz, AD (Law), FIA. Shams Gondal, S.I/SHO, FIA.
Date of Hearing: 18.02.2026. KHADIM HUSSAIN SOOMRO, J: Through this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of FIR No. 111, dated 18.12.2025, u/s 109/201 PPC & 14, 30 of IHRA, 2018, read with Section 5(2)47 PCA, 1947, PS FIA/ACC, Islamabad. 2. Brief facts stated in the aforesaid FIR, lodged on the complaint of Asad Ullah Khan are that consequent upon Enquiry No. 178/2025 conducted by Police Station FIA Corporate Crime Circle (CCC), Islamabad, it has been unequivocally established beyond reasonable doubt at this stage that accused Fazeela Abbasi d/o Mazhar Ali Abbasi, holder of CNIC No. 61101-5386574-6, has been systematically, deliberately, and criminally operating an illegal healthcare/ beauty clinic under the name and style of "DFA' by Dr. Fazeela Abbasi", located at House No. 02, Street No. 44, Sector F-8/1, Islamabad, in flagrant defiance of Writ Petition No. 09-2026 2
statutory law, regulatory authority, and public safety norms. The accused has intentionally usurped the role of a regulated healthcare provider without obtaining mandatory registration and licensing from the Islamabad Healthcare Regulatory Authority (IHRA) as required under the Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018, thereby knowingly violating the law for unlawful financial gain. The sustained operation of the illegal clinic could not have continued without active criminal facilitation, protection, and patronage by corrupt officers/ officials of IHRA Islamabad, with whom the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy, amounting to abuse of official authority, corruption, and institutional subversion. It has further been firmly established that the accused illegally converted and exploited a residential premises for commercial healthcare activities, in blatant violation of CDA zoning and building by-laws, with the deliberate connivance and complicity of officers/officials of the Building Control Section and Enforcement Section of CDA Islamabad, thereby undermining municipal governance and exposing the general public to grave safety risks. The accused habitually, recklessly, and criminally used, stored, and administered unregistered, substandard, and spurious medicines and medical products at the said premises. These actions were inherently life-threatening and carried out with complete disregard for human life, exposing patients to irreversible disfigurement, serious bodily harm, life-long infections, and potential death, thus constituting a direct assault on public health and safety. Acting on credible, verified intelligence, a lawful and court-authorized raid was conducted by a team of PS FIA CCC, Islamabad, comprising Nouman Khalil (Assistant Director), Zohaib Khan Niazi (Assistant Director), Madiha Azam (Sub- Inspector), Faisal Aziz (ASI), and Mahmood Riaz (ASI), along with officers/ officials of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP), after obtaining a search and seizure warrant from the Area Magistrate, Islamabad-West, in strict compliance with legal requirements. During execution of the raid, it was Writ Petition No. 09-2026 3
discovered that the accused, having prior knowledge of impending law- enforcement action through corrupt sources, had deliberately removed, concealed, and destroyed unregistered and spurious medicines and related incriminating material, thereby intentionally causing disappearance of vital evidence with the specific object of evading legal consequences and shielding her accomplices, constituting a serious offence of obstruction of justice. The conduct of the accused throughout demonstrates mens rea, habitual criminal intent, and calculated abuse of regulatory loopholes, clearly establishing willful defiance of law, corruption, conspiracy, and endangerment of human life. In view of the above overwhelming facts, documentary evidence, and conduct of the accused, a strong prima facie case of organized illegality and corruption is made out. The competent authority has formally approved the registration of the criminal case. Hence, this FIR. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the contents of the FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. It is contended that the allegation leveled against the petitioner, namely that she is allegedly running a clinic without lawful authorization and using a residential property for commercial purposes in purported violation of the CDA laws and regulations, does not constitute a cognizable offence within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel argues that at best, such alleged acts may amount to regulatory or administrative violations, for which the relevant statutes provide specific civil, departmental, or penal consequences to be enforced through designated forums and authorities, but not through the registration of an FIR. 4. It is further submitted that even an alleged violation of any provision of the Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018, does not fall within the ambit of a cognizable offence, as the said statute prescribes its own mechanism for Writ Petition No. 09-2026 4
inspection, inquiry, imposition of fines, suspension, or sealing, to be undertaken by the competent regulatory authority. Learned counsel contends that the invocation of criminal machinery in the absence of a cognizable offence is a clear abuse of the process of law, as it seeks to convert a purely regulatory dispute into a criminal prosecution, contrary to the legislative intent. It is, therefore, urged that the registration of the impugned FIR is without lawful authority, suffers from legal infirmity, and warrants interference by this court to prevent misuse of the criminal process and to secure the ends of justice. The counsel relied upon Section 32 of the Islamabad Healthcare Regulation, 2018, which is reproduced as under:- 32. Cognizance by court.---(1) Save as provided in this Act, no court other than the Court of Sessions assume jurisdiction under this Act unless a complaint in writing is filled before the aforesaid court by the authority?
5. Learned counsel further submits that Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code pertains to abetment, while Section 201 PPC relates to causing the disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen an offender from legal punishment; however, neither of these provisions is prima facie attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the FIR does not disclose any specific act on the part of the petitioner constituting abetment or any overt act aimed at concealing evidence or misleading law-enforcement authorities. It is further contended that Section 5(2) read with Section 47 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 has also been invoked without lawful justification, inasmuch as the allegations set forth in the FIR do not disclose the essential ingredients of the said offence, and no material has been brought on record to suggest any misuse of electronic means falling within the purview of the aforesaid provision, rendering the application of these penal sections wholly misconceived and unsustainable in law. Writ Petition No. 09-2026 5
6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Attorney General submitted that the scope of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution in matters relating to quashment of FIR is limited and is to be exercised sparingly. It may further be contended that the allegations in the FIR are not confined to mere regulatory non-compliance, but also include assertions of deliberate concealment of evidence, prior knowledge of the raid through corrupt sources, and removal or destruction of incriminating material. Such allegations, prima facie, attract penal consequences beyond mere administrative violations and require thorough investigation. The learned Assistant Attorney General further contended that, under the Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018, it may be argued that Section 30 of the Act specifically criminalizes the establishment of a healthcare establishment without registration or licence and provides punishment with imprisonment. The counsel argued that the allegation of deliberate removal and destruction of material before execution of the search warrant prima facie constitutes causing the disappearance of evidence, which falls within the definition of section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). 7. Learned counsel for the CDA submits that the allegation contained in the FIR to the extent of conversion or use of a residential premises for commercial healthcare activities squarely falls within the domain of municipal and regulatory control governed by the Islamabad Capital Territory Building Control Regulations, 2020. Regulation 2.1.7 specifically permits a residential house to be used by its resident professional, including a doctor, for a "home occupation," subject to prior permission and payment of the prescribed charges. Even where such permission has not been obtained, or where the extent of use exceeds the permissible limit, the consequences under the regulatory framework are administrative and civil in nature. It is contended that the Building Control Regulations provide for regulatory measures such as the imposition of annual charges, sealing, suspension of activity, issuance of a show cause notice, and Writ Petition No. 09-2026 6
imposition of fines. The scheme of the regulations does not create an independent cognizable criminal offence merely on account of conversion or excessive use of a residential premises. The matter, therefore, at best constitutes a zoning or building violation to be addressed through departmental proceedings under the relevant municipal law. Learned counsel further submits that neither the FIR nor the applicable CDA regulations disclose any specific penal provision rendering such conversion per se a criminal act warranting registration of an FIR under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The absence of a clearly defined criminal offence under the CDA laws indicates that the legislature intended such matters to be dealt with through regulatory enforcement rather than criminal prosecution. It is thus respectfully submitted that, insofar as the role of CDA is concerned, the allegation of conversion from residential to commercial use does not attract criminal liability. The proper course available to the authority, if a violation is established, would be imposition of a fine, sealing of premises, or other regulatory action in accordance with the Building Control Regulations, 2020, but not initiation of criminal proceedings through registration of an FIR. 8. Representative of IHRA states that Learned counsel submits that the allegations relating to the operation of a healthcare establishment without registration fall squarely within the framework of the Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018, which is a special statute providing a complete mechanism for inspection, inquiry, adjudication, and imposition of penalties. Sections 29 and 30 of the Act show that action is to be preceded by inspection, issuance of a show cause notice, and opportunity of hearing through a duly constituted Hearing Committee. It is further submitted that Section 32 of the Act expressly provides that no Court shall assume jurisdiction unless a complaint in writing is filed by the authority. This clearly indicates that prosecution under the Act is complaint- based and not police initiated. The statutory scheme does not contemplate routine registration of FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. in matters of regulatory Writ Petition No. 09-2026 7
non-compliance. Learned counsel contends that until the authority conducts an inquiry and determines a violation in accordance with the Act and Regulations, the alleged Act cannot automatically be treated as a cognizable offence. At the most, the matter attracts regulatory consequences such as a fine, suspension, or sealing, as provided under the Act. The counsel finally submitted that the initiation of criminal proceedings by registering an FIR, without first invoking the statutory mechanism under the Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018, is not in consonance with the legislative scheme, and the alleged violation does not per se constitute a cognizable offence. 9. Arguments heard, record perused. 10. Before adverting to the merits of the controversy, it would be advantageous first to have a glance at the ratio decidendi laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan with regard to the scope of quashment of an FIR. In the case of "Ayesha Tayyab vs. Station House Officer, Police Station Cantt. District Sialkot and others" (2025 SCMR 1117), wherein it was held that:- “Article 199(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 confers powers on High Court to judicially review the acts done or proceedings taken by the persons performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority. Where such acts or proceedings are found to be without lawful authority, the High Court is fully competent to declare them as such and of no legal effect. The registration of FIR and investigation are the acts of the police department, which is part of the provincial law enforcement apparatus. Therefore, the High Court, under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, possesses the constitutional jurisdiction to quash an FIR, but as held by this court on numerous occasions, such power must be exercised sparsely and in the most exceptional circumstances. The High Court can quash an FIR under Article 199, in cases where no offence is made out against the accused from the facts on record, or where the registration of FIR reflects misuse of legal authority or lacks sound legal justification because prosecution under such conditions would be tantamount to abuse of the process of law, Writ Petition No. 09-2026 8
or where FIR is registered without proper authority or in clear violation of established laws.”
11. In the case of "FIA through Director General, FIA and others vs. Syed Hamid Ali Shah and others" (PLD 2023 SC 265), the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that:- Under section 154 of the Cr.P.C., a first information report (FIR) can be registered only with regard to the commission of a cognizable offence. Similarly, an investigation can be made by a police officer, without the order of a Magistrate, under section 156 of the Cr.P.C. only in respect of a cognizable offence. Needless to say, it is the contents of an FIR which are to be seen to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is made out of the allegations contained therein, and mere mentioning of a particular Section of the P.P.C. or any other offence under the law in the FIR is not determinative in this regard. However, the falsity or truthfulness of those allegations is not under examination for the purpose of determining the legal authority of the police officer to register the FIR. The precise question is: whether the allegations as contained in the FIR make out the commission of a cognizable offence; if so, what is that?
12. It is by now a settled principle that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution to quash criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and only in exceptional circumstances. The court, at this stage, is required to confine itself to the bare reading of the FIR and ascertain whether the allegations, if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The veracity, sufficiency, or otherwise of the evidence is not to be examined in writ jurisdiction, as such matters fall within the domain of the investigating agency and the trial court. Interference is warranted only where the FIR does not disclose any offence, is registered without lawful authority, or the continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled principles, the present case is to be examined. 13. Now reverting back to the contents of the FIR, wherein the first set of allegations pertains to the Islamabad Healthcare Regulatory Authority. It is Writ Petition No. 09-2026 9
alleged that the petitioner was operating a healthcare and beauty clinic under the name "DFA by Dr. Fazeela Abbasi" without obtaining mandatory registration and a licence as required under the Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018. It is further alleged that she deliberately continued such operations in violation of the statutory framework, thereby usurping the role of a regulated healthcare provider. 14. A conjoint reading of Regulations 30 to 34 of the Islamabad Healthcare Regulatory Authority Regulations, 2023, makes it evident that these provisions are purely regulatory and procedural in nature. Regulation 30 deals exclusively with the composition, qualification, and appointment of the inspection team. Regulation 31 delineates the functions of such a team, subject to the written authorization of the authority. Regulation 32 enumerates the powers of the inspection team during inspection, including entry into premises, access to records, inspection of equipment, and, in appropriate cases, confiscation or interim suspension, subject to reporting to the authority. Regulation 33 provides for the constitution of a Hearing Committee, while Regulation 34 mandates affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to the healthcare establishment before any adverse action is taken. 15. These provisions collectively establish a structured administrative mechanism for inspection, inquiry, and adjudication within the regulatory framework of the Act. They neither create a standalone criminal offence nor prescribe immediate penal consequences warranting registration of an FIR. Instead, they reflect the legislative intent that alleged violations are first to be processed through inspection, reporting, a show-cause notice, and hearing before the competent authority. Therefore, Regulations 30 to 34, read in their entirety, do not by themselves justify initiation of criminal proceedings, as they are designed to ensure due regulatory compliance rather than to trigger criminal Writ Petition No. 09-2026 10
prosecution at the threshold. For the ready reference, the relevant regulations are reproduced as under:- "30. Inspection team. (1) An inspection team shall consist of inspection officers of the authority while two experts of the field may be chosen from the pool of experts developed under sub- section (2) of section 19 of the Act:
Provided that in absence of the Registration Board, the authority may appoint a said experts with approval of the Board.
(2) Qualification and experience of the experts of an inspection team shall vary according to different categories of inspections required to be made for various HCEs.
(3) Authority shall ascertain the required qualification and experience of an expert for different categories of inspection and HCEs.
31. Functions of the inspection team. (1) Subject to the Act, an inspection team shall not inspect a HEC without an order or direction in writing of the Authority, or any other officer authorized in this behalf by the authority. (2) An inspection team may perform any of the inspections mentioned in part VI of these regulations, subject to sub-regulation (1). (3) All inspections shall be carried out according to the provisions of the Act, rules and regulations prescribed thereunder. (4) An inspection team shall report to the director or deputy director inspections or such other officer of the directorate as may be appointed in this regard by the Board of the Authority or CEO where power is delegated to him.
32. Power of an inspection team. (1) An inspection team shall have following powers for any inspection made under regulation 29, part VI of these regulations, namely:-
(a) an application for grant of a registration or a licence or its renewal pursuant to the Act and rules and regulations made thereunder, would give power to an inspection team for complete acquiescence to any entry or inspection for which the grant or renewal of a registration or a licence is sought in order to facilitate verification of the information submitted on, or in connection with, such an application; (b) the authority or an inspection team or any duly designated representative shall have the power to enter upon and into premises of the applicant or a licencee, as the case may be, pursuant to the Act, rules and regulations made thereunder at any time without threat of injury, verbal abuse, or harassment and in the spirit of mutual cooperation in order to determine the status of compliance with the Act and rules and regulations made thereunder. In case any person tries to interfere with the inspection process, the authority may impose a fine as per the relevant provisions of the Act; Writ Petition No. 09-2026 11
(c) the authority or its inspection team or any authorized person of the authority shall have powers to have full access to all the relevant records, documents and reports at the said premises of HCE or in the possession of its management, as required for the purpose of the Act and rules and regulations made thereunder or other applicable law; (d) an inspection team shall have power to copy any records, documents and reports found in HCE or in the possession of its management either manually or by photocopy, unless otherwise protected by law, at no expense to the authority, (e) an inspection team shall have power to inspect any apparatus, appliance, equipment, instrument, product, goods or item used or found in, or any practice or procedure being carried out at a healthcare establishment or by a healthcare service provider; (f) where, in opinion of the inspection team, the use of any apparatus, appliance, equipment, instrument, product, goods or item, or the carrying out of any practice or procedure in a healthcare establishment, is dangerous or detrimental to any person therein or otherwise unsuitable for the purpose for which it is used or carried out, it may confiscate the said good or item or suspend the use of it and shall immediately report the matter in writing to the authority along with the necessary details. On receipt of report the authority may act according to the provisions of the Act and rules and regulations made thereunder: Provided that inspection team shall keep the confiscated goods or items in the record room of the authority for such time as may be necessary for the proceedings: Provided further that confiscated goods or items shall be disposed of according to the law and on the order in writing of the director inspection;
(g) an inspection team may pass an interim order of suspension of services or sealing of a HCE till further order of the hearing committee and shall record its reasons in writing for doing the same; (h) a member of the inspection team shall not disclose any information at any forum which is contained in the medical record, or which relates to the condition, treatment or diagnosis, of any person, as may have come to his knowledge in the course of carrying out any investigation, inspection, enquiry or performing any duty or function…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.