| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3594 2025 SLD 3594 = 2025 SHC 1957 |
Sindh High Court
C.P No. D-3446 of 2025
Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi; Mr. Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro.
C.P No. D-3446 of 2025
Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi; Mr. Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro.
[Abdul Mateen v. Province of Sindh and others]
Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section: 154, 156,22-A
Law: Police Rules, 1934
Section: XXIV & XXV
Law: Police Order (22 of 2002)
Section: 18
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199,9
Summary
The petitioner, Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro, filed an instant constitutional petition seeking several reliefs including disclosure of FIRs/inquiries against him, restraint from unlawful arrest, and constitution of a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) due to alleged false FIRs linked to business disputes and property disputes with certain individuals. The petitioner claimed violation of his fundamental rights and denial of due process.
Core Points:
- Multiple FIRs were registered against the petitioner involving serious allegations including murder, fraud in vehicle leasing, and cheating.
- Investigation reports were submitted and the petitioner was referred to face trial.
- Police have statutory authority to investigate FIRs and aggrieved persons have remedies under the Police Order 2002 and through judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution.
- The petitioner did not seek remedy under the Police Order (e.g., change of investigation) before moving to this Court.
- Criminal and civil proceedings could coexist and initiation of civil suits does not bar criminal trials.
- Reinvestigation or appointment of JIT is an extraordinary measure to be ordered only when gross negligence, mala fide investigation, or manifest inefficiency is shown, which was not proven in this case.
- The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents disapproving repeated reinvestigations as they usually delay justice and are often misused.
- The petitioner was entitled to a fair trial to present his defense, and factual controversies cannot be resolved at this stage in constitutional jurisdiction.
- The petition was dismissed due to lack of merits, but the petitioner was free to seek other legal remedies.
Core Points, Law & Sections
| Core Point | Applicable Law / Section | Remarks |
|---|---|---|
| FIR registration and investigation | Sections 154, 156 CrPC; Police Rules 1934 (Chapters XXIV & XXV) | Police duty to record FIR and investigate cognizable offences |
| Remedy against police excesses | Section 18 Police Order 2002 (Sindh Amendment Act XI of 2019) | Aggrieved person can apply to District Police Head for change of investigation |
| Judicial Review and change of investigation powers | Section 22-A CrPC; Article 199 Constitution | Ex-Officio Justice of Peace (Sessions Court) can order change of investigation if mala fide shown |
| Criminal and Civil Proceedings coexistence | Supreme Court ruling: Seema Fareed v. State (2008 SCMR 839) | Criminal prosecution not barred by parallel civil suit |
| Reinvestigation criteria | Supreme Court ruling: Riaz Hussain v. State (1986 SCMR 1934) | Reinvestigation allowed only for new evidence or gross negligence; disapproved if for favoring parties due to manipulation |
| Due process guarantee | Article 9 Constitution; Article 199 Constitution | Protection of fundamental rights and right to fair trial |
| Court’s approach in constitutional petitions involving factual disputes | Supreme Court ruling: Mst. Tayyeba Ambareen v. Shafqat Ali Kiyani (2023 SCMR 246) | Constitutional courts generally do not decide factual disputes |
ORDER