Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 22-A(6)

Legal Core Points Relief Sought: Petitioner challenged dismissal of her application under Section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C., seeking registration of an FIR against her father and brothers. Allegations: She claimed that property entrusted to her family was sold without her knowledge, and that forged documents/signatures were prepared. She also alleged threats when she later questioned the property and rent. Court's Key Findings: A 1983 gift deed showed that the property had been gifted to the petitioner and her sisters, making the petitioner a co-sharer/donee. However, the petitioner did not possess or produce any alleged forged document. The property was admittedly situated in Rawalpindi, not Islamabad. The petitioner's assertion that forged documents might have been prepared in Islamabad was merely a presumption, unsupported by evidence. Legal Principle: A court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C. only where it has territorial jurisdiction. Mere suspicion that an offence/document-related act occurred within Islamabad, without supporting material, was insufficient. Outcome: The High Court held that the Islamabad courts lacked territorial jurisdiction to direct registration of the FIR concerning property situated in Rawalpindi. Result: Writ petition dismissed in limine. ORDER-SHEET Through the instant writ petition, petitioner has assailed the order dated 22.12.2021, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Ex Officio Justice of Peace (West) Islamabad whereby her application under Section 22–A (6) of Cr.P.C., for registration of FIR against proposed accused, has been dismissed. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner while proceeding to USA, in 1980 her father asked the petitioner for Power of Attorney regarding property to manage the affairs of the property and in the meanwhile, during her stay in USA, her father along with her real brothers had sold the said property without her permission and knowledge. That in the year 2018, when petitioner came back from USA after almost 40 years, the petitioner inquired about the status of her property and the rent so collected, the proposed accused paid no heed to the same rather started…