IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Original Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ 
Mr. Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry 
Mr. Justice Sh. Azmat Saeed 
 
 
Human Rights Case No.19526-G of 2013 
(Application by Mst. Bibi Zahida for arrest of accused of 
murder of her daughter Waheeda) 
 
Applicant:  
 
In person with her daughter Ms. Fareeda 
 
On Court Notice:  
Mr. Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, DAG 
 
 
 
 
Syed Arshad Hussain Shah, Addl. A.G. KPK 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Naveed Akhtar, Addl. A.G. KPK 
 
For KPK Police: 
 
Mr. Abdul Latif Afridi, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M. Zahoor Qureshi, AOR with 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Ihsan Ghani, IGP, KPK 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Imran Shahid, SSP Operation Peshawar 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Muhammad Faisal SP Cantt, Peshawar 
 
 
 
 
Rana Umer Farooq, ASP U/Town Peshawar 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Rizwanullah SI, U/Town 
 
For Islamabad Police: Mr. Bani Amin Khan, IGP 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Yasin Farooq, SSP Operation 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Jamil Ahmed Hashmi, SP Saddar  
 
 
 
 
Mr. Abdul Rasheed Niazi, DSP  
 
 
 
 
Mr. Sajjad Bukhari, Inspector/SHO  
 
 
 
 
Mr. Rashid Ahmed, SI 
 
 
 
 
(All in person) 
 
Date of hearing:  
11.07.2013 
 
 
 
 
 
***** 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ. Instant proceedings 
under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973 have originated from an application received from Mst. 
Bibi Zahida wife of Darya Khan. Petition has been entertained for 
enforcement of fundamental rights involving question of public 
importance about the denial of right of the general public to have 
excess to justice by the law enforcing agency i.e. the police, as a 
 
2 
result whereof victims continuously suffered at the hands of culprits, 
leading to the increase of unrest/uncertainty in the society.  
2. 
  
In the instant case, petitioner Mst. Zahida alleges murder 
of her daughter Waheeda @ Palwasha @ Honey, which took place on 
19.05.2013 at the hands of her husband Darya Khan and son Khalid-
ur-Rahman within jurisdiction of police station University Town, 
Peshawar.  
3. 
  
Recapitulating facts of the events which had given rise to 
the instant case can only be appropriately explained by reproducing 
the contents of her application in extenso herein below:- 
 
3 
 
 
 
4 
 
 
4. 
  
At the hearing of the petition, it revealed that the case of 
deceased lady could not be handled as per criminal law prevailing in 
the country against culprits, reasons of which are still required to be 
unearth because insistence of petitioner to register FIR of murder of 
her daughter was not conceded to by Peshawar police at highest level. 
Inasmuch as, without conducting autopsy, her dead body was 
dispatched from Peshawar to Islamabad in an ambulance but on her 
hue and cry, the police was compelled to get back the dead body from 
a place known as Tarnol near Islamabad, to Peshawar, where allegedly 
post-mortem was conducted at 4:00 pm. Statedly instead of issuing 
post-mortem report, one of the parts of her body i.e. heart was sent to 
Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore as it was difficult to ascertain her 
cause of death. As such no FIR was registered except recording report 
vide Entry No.16 in Daily Diary of PS Shalimar, wherein her case was 
 
5 
treated to be covered under section 174 Cr.PC. It is stated that 
deceased’s husband is resident of Islamabad where she was living with 
him along with her two children, therefore, her dead body was again 
brought back to Islamabad in the house of her father-in-law, Bani 
Amin Khan who is IGP, Islamabad.  
5. 
  
The petitioner did not permit her burial without registering 
FIR and getting Post-Mortem. On this, FIR No.134/2013 dated 
19.05.2013, under section 302/34 PPC was registered at Police Station 
Shalimar, Islamabad, knowing well that incident had taken place in the 
area of Town Police Station, Peshawar (KPK).  
6. 
  
On having issued process under HRC, reportedly no 
effective progress was made by concerned Authority, therefore, 
petitioner, Mst. Bibi Zahida submitted another application, contents 
whereof are reproduced as under:- 
“نﺎﺗﺳﮐﺎﭘ فآ ٹروﮐ مﯾرﭘﺳ بﺣﺎﺻ سﭨﺳﺟ فﯾﭼ بﺎﻧﺟ تﻣدﺧﺑ  
ﯽﻟﺎﻋ بﺎﻧﺟ  
از ﯽﺑ ﯽﺑ ةﺎﻣﺳﻣ  ﻼﯾﺋﺎﺳ ہﮐ ﮯھ شرازﮔ ہﺧروﻣ ںﯾﻣ تﻣدﺧ ﯽﮐ روﺿﺣ ﮯﻧ ادھ۲۵ 
  ﯽﺋﻣ۲۰۱۳  ﺎھﺗ ﺎﯾﮔ ﺎﯾﮐ رﺎﯾﺗﺧا فﻗوﻣ ںﯾﻣ سﺟ ۔ﯽھﺗ یرازﮔ تﺳاوﺧرد ددﻋ کﯾا ہﮐ
ﯽﮐ نﯾﻣﺎﻧﺑ دﻟو نﯾﻣا ﯽﻠﻋ ہﮐ وﺟ ﯽﻧھ فرﻋ ہﺷوﻠﭘ هدﯾﺣو ﯽﭨﯾﺑ یرﯾﻣ ہﮐ  ﯽھﺗ یوﯾﺑ
 IG ںﯾﻣ سﯾﻟوﭘ دﺎﺑآ مﻼﺳا تﻗو سا رﺳﺳ ﺎﮐ ﯽﭨﯾﺑ یرﯾﻣ روا
 وﮐ ﯽﭨﯾﺑ یرﯾﻣ روا ﮯھ
 ہﺧروﻣ19.5.2013  وﮐ ںﯾﻣ تﺑﺎﺑ ﯽﮐ سﺟ ۔ﺎﯾﮔ ﺎﯾد رﮐ لﺗﻗ ںﯾﻣ روﺎﺷﭘکﯾا ﮯﻧ ںﯾﻣ 
ہﺧروﻣ ٹروﭘر19.5.13   روﺎﺷﭘ ہﮐ وﺟ لﺗﻗ ہﯾ ۔ﮯھ ﯽﮐﭼ وھ جرد ںﯾﻣ نٰٔوٗﺎﭨ ہﻧﺎھﺗ
ثوﻠﻣ ںﯾﻣ سا ﮯھ اوﮨ ںﯾﻣ پﺷ نٔوﺎﭨ  ہﯾزوﻓ یوﯾﺑ ﯽﮐﺳا نﺎﺧ دﻟﺎﺧ ﮯھ ﺎﭨﯾﺑ ﺎﮔﺳ ارﯾﻣ
 روا۔ںﯾھ ثوﻠﻣ ںﯾﻣ لﺗﻗ سا نﯾﻣا ﯽﻠﻋ دﻧوﺎﺧ ﺎﮐ ﯽﻧھ فرﻋ ہﺷوﻠﭘ هدﯾﺣو ﯽﭨﯾﺑ یرﯾﻣ  
 شﺷوﮐ نﮐﻣﻣ رھ نﯾﻣﺎﯾﻧﺑ دﻟاو ﺎﮐ نﯾﻣا ﯽﻠﻋ روا شﮔﻧﺑ نﺎﺧ ﺎﯾرد دﻟاو ﺎﮐ نﺎﺧ دﻟﺎﺧ ہﮐﺑﺟ
ےرﺎﻣھ ہﮐ ںﯾھ ﮯﮨر رﮐ ﭨرﺎﭘ وﻧود وﮐ ﯽﭨﯾﺑ ںﺎﻣ مھ روا ںﯾﺋﺎﺟ ﭻﺑ ﮯﭨﯾﺑ نﺎﺟ ﮯﺳ ںوﯾ
 وھ رود ﮯﺳ سﯾﮐ سا مھ ہﮐ ںﯾھ ﯽﮨر لﻣ نﺎﯾﮐﻣھد لﺳﻠﺳﻣ ںﯾﻣھ روا ﮯھ هرطﺧ ﺎﮐ
 
6 
 ﮯﺳ پآ ۔ںﯾد ﺎﺑد وﮐ لﺗﻗ سا روا ۔ںﯾﻟ رﮐ ٹﻧﻣ لﭨﯾﺳ ںﯾﻣ سﭘآ ںوﻧود هو روا ںﯾﺋﺎﺟ
FC  ٖ ﮯﺋﻠﯾﮐ تظﺎﻔﺣ ﯽﮐ نﺎﺟ یرﺎﻣھ ہﮐ ﮯھ شرازﮔ یرﯾﻣ
 ﯽﭨروﯾﮐﯾﺳ ﯽﮐ زرﺟﻧﯾر ﺎﯾ
وﭘ ﯽﮐ دﺎﺑآ مﻼﺳا ہﮐﻧوﯾﮐ ﮯﺋﺎﺟ ﯽﮐ ﺎﯾﮩﻣ سﯾﻟ
IG ﮯ����ﮐ   ﮯھ ںﯾﻣ لورﭨﻧﮐ  
 لﻣ ازﺳ وﮐ لﺗﺎﻗ لﺻا ہﮐ ﺎﺗ ﮯﺋﺎﺟ ﯽﮐ ددﻣ یرﺎﻣﮨ ہﮐ ﮯھ دﺎﯾرﻓ ﯽﮐ ںﺎﻣ کﯾا ﮯﺳ پآ
۔ﮯﮐﺳ  
ﮯﮐﺳﺟ ﯽﭨﯾﺑ یرﯾﻣ روا ﮯھﺟﻣ2  ﮯﮐ ںوﭼﺑ ﮯﮐﺳا روا ﮯھ هوﯾﺑ ہﮐ وﺟ ںﯾﮨ ﮯﭼﺑ
O
 
 ںﯾﮩﻧ شﺋﺎﮨر رﭘ ہﮔﺟ یرﺳود ںﯾﮩﮐ مھ ﮯﺳ ہﺟو ﯽﮐﺳﺟ ںﯾھ ﮯﮨروھ زرﭘﯾﭘ ﮯﮐ لوﯾﻟ
آ ﮯﯾﺋﻟ سا ۔ﮯﺗﮐﺳ ﮫﮐر ﮯﺋﯾﻠﯾﮐ تظﺎﻔﺣ یرﺎﻣھ پ
 FC
 رﭘ رھﮔ ےرﺎﻣھ زرﺟﻧﯾر ﺎﯾ
ںﯾدرﮐ تﺎﻧﯾﻌﺗ  
۔ﯽﮔوھ ﯽﻧﺎﺑرﮩﻣ یڑﺑ یڑﺑ ﯽﮐ پآ  
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔ 
--------  
 هدھاز ﯽﺑ ﯽﺑ ةﺎﻣﺳﻣ  
 رﺑﻣﻧ نﺎﮐﻣ۳۲۳  رﺑﻣﻧ ﯽﻠﮔ۲۱   ٹﻧﻣﺳﯾﺑ  
E-11/4
 دﺎﺑآ مﻼﺳا  
   
7.   
The hearing of the case commenced on 03.07.2013 when 
Mr. Yasin Farooq SSP Operation conceded that in respect of murder of 
daughter of petitioner, namely Mst. Waheeda @ Palwasha @ Honey, 
FIR should have not been registered at Islamabad. Contents of his 
statement read thus:- 
“Statement regarding case FIR No.134 P.S. 
Shalimar, Islamabad 
On 19.5.2013, at around 8 p.m. all officers were in the 
residence of I.G. Islamabad regarding the funeral of his 
daughter in law Miss Waheeda. The mother of the 
deceased sat in front of the Ambulance and insisted for an 
FIR before the burial. 
At this IG Islamabad directed SHO Shalimar Sajjad Haider 
and DSP Margalla Rashid to record their statement and 
register the FIR. In compliance of his orders FIR 
No.134/13 u/s 302/34 PPC P/S Shalimar was registered. 
Sd/- 
 
7 
 
YASEEN FAROOQ 
SSP/Islamabad” 
 
The above statement was followed by another statement of the same 
officer, which has been incorporated in the following para of the 
proceedings dated 04.07.2013:- 
“4……. 
Since 
the 
occurrence/incident 
had 
taken 
place 
at 
Peshawar, hence registration of FIR at Islamabad is not 
legally justified. It may be noted that undersigned has not 
passed any orders for registration of FIR. It is further 
submitted that after verifying that the incident has actually 
taken place in the jurisdiction of PS Town, Peshawar and 
legal proceedings were already underway, cancellation 
report in the subject case was prepared on 25.05.2013 
and the matter was referred to the Home Department, 
Government of KPK.” 
8. 
  
On 04.7.2013 IGPs of KPK and Islamabad were asked to 
furnish lists of officers/officials to whom they consider that right of 
hearing should be provided to them, lest, injustice may not be caused 
to them, if any adverse order is passed. Following lists were according 
furnished:- 
List of KPK Police Officers 
 
1. 
Mr. Ihsan Ghani, IGP 
2. 
Mr. Imran Shahid, SSP (Operations) 
3. 
Mr. Faisal, SP (Cantt) 
4. 
Mr. Umar Farooq ASP, Town 
5. 
Mr. Sardar Hussain, SHO Town 
6. 
Mr. Rizwan Ullah, I.O. 
 
List of Police Officers of Islamabad 
1. 
Mr. Bani Amin Khan, IGP, Islamabad 
 
8 
2. 
Mr. Yaseen Farooq, SSP (Operations),  
3. 
Mr. Jameel Hashmi, SP Saddar Zone 
4. 
Mr. Rasheed Niazi, DSP, Margalla 
5. 
Mr. Sajjad Haider, SHO, PS. Shalimar 
6. 
Mr. Rasheed Ahmed, SI, P.S. Shalimar 
9. 
  
Mr. Latif Afridi, ASC filed HRCMA No.98/2013, whereas Mr. 
Bani Amin Khan, IGP Islamabad also filed HRCMA 97/2013. Similarly 
Jamil Hashmi, SP filed separate application.  
10. 
  
We have heard to all of them in support of contentions put 
forward by them.  
11. 
  
Learned counsel for IGP, KPK contended that as per facts 
disclosed to police, no evidence was available to conclude prima facie 
that she died because of unnatural death, therefore, police after 
recording report No.16 dated 19.05.2013 in the Daily Diary Register of 
Police Station, proceeded to consider incident covered under section 
174 Cr.P.C. because in the meanwhile incomplete Post-Mortem report  
was received and police surgeons/doctors were waiting for the result 
of Forensic Laboratory to whom, heart of deceased was sent for 
examination to ascertain whether her death was natural or due to 
administrating poison to her or due to asphyxia. 
12. 
  
However, in his presence, Mr. Ihsan Ghani, IGP, KPK 
stated that Bani Amin was insisting for registration of the case but he 
refused to do so. Such statement he had also made on 03.07.2013 
during the hearing of the case. As per Mr. Bani Amin Khan, IGP, 
Islamabad, he approached to everyone, responsible for registration of 
case, including Moharar to IGP, KPK but no body listened him.  
 
9 
13. 
  
It is important to note that learned counsel for IGP, KPK 
also conceded that Police should have registered the case at Peshawar 
as there were allegations of murder against the father and brother of 
the deceased.  
14. 
  
Learned Additional Advocate General, KPK also agreed that 
as per section 154 Cr.P.C. police had no option except to register the 
case at the police station where incident of murder of deceased 
allegedly took place.  
15. 
  
It is to be observed that when there is no difference of 
opinion amongst all of them that case should have been registered u/s 
154 Cr.P.C. when matter was reported, the police administration is 
bound to follow the dictate of law, which has been explained by this 
Court time and again. Reference may be made to the following paras 
of the judgments in the case of Muhammad Bashir v. Station House 
Officer, Okara Cantt (PLD 2007 SC 539):-  
27. The conclusions that we draw from the above, rather 
lengthy discussion, on the subject of F.I.R., are asunder:- 
(a)  no authority vested with an Officer Incharge of a 
Police Station or with anyone else to refuse to record 
an F.I.R. where the information conveyed, disclosed 
the commission of a cognizable offence. 
(b) 
no authority vested with an Officer Incharge of a 
Police Station or with any one else to hold any 
inquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the 
information which is conveyed to the S.H.O. for the 
purposes of recording of an F.I.R. 
(c) 
any F.I.R. registered after such an exercise i.e. 
determination 
of 
the 
truth 
or 
falsity 
of 
the 
 
10
information conveyed to the S.H.O., would get hit by 
the provisions of section 162, Cr.P.C. 
(d) 
existence of an F.I.R. is no condition precedent for 
holding of an investigation nor is the same a 
prerequisite for the arrest of a person concerned 
with the commission of a cognizable offence; 
(e)  nor does the recording of an F.I.R. mean that the 
S.H.O. or a police officer deputed by him was obliged 
to investigate the case or to go through the whole 
length of investigation of the case mentioned therein 
or that any accused person nominated therein must 
be arrested; and finally that 
(f) 
the check against lodging of false F.I.Rs. was not 
refusal to record such F.I.Rs, but punishment of such 
informants under S.182, P.P.C. etc. which should be, 
if enforced, a fairly deterrent against misuse of the 
provisions of S.154, Cr.P.C. 
 
16. 
  
Prior to above dictum, this Court in the case titled as the 
Human Rights Case No.3212 of 2006 (2006 SCMR 1547) observed as 
under:- 
3. 
I.G. Police is appearing in another case, which 
pertained to District Sialkot, therefore, the above matter 
was brought to his notice as he was present in the Court. 
D.P.O. Sheikhupura stated that now the case has been 
registered by the police vide F.I.R. No.138, dated 28-4-
2006 under section 302, P.P.C. and investigation is going 
on. Non-registration of a criminal case wherein a murder 
has taken place for a period about 2-1/2 years clearly 
demonstrates inefficiency, and gross negligence on the 
part of the concerned Police Officers. It is well-settled 
that during the investigation it is always better to collect 
evidence if available, as early as possible. We are not in 
 
11
a position to understand that in such a case where 
murder has taken place what would be the result of the 
same and particularly poor lady Mumtaz Bibi who has 
appeared and is complaining against the police attitude 
saying that she had been approaching them again and 
again for the purpose of registration of the case but no 
one had listened her and at the end of the day D.P.O. 
came to her rescue and directed the registration of the 
case and entrusted investigation to S.P. Investigation. 
We understand that matter will be investigated and 
evidence will be collected, sufficient or otherwise for the 
purpose of submitting challan but what would be the 
recompense to the lady whose son has been killed in a 
gruesome manner. 
 
4. 
As far as the system of the law is concerned, the 
constitution says that everyone is entitled to the 
protection of the same and is entitled to get justice in all 
the circumstances but the attitude of the police in this 
case is irresponsible and on account of such attitude, 
mother of the deceased Mumtaz Bibi is bound to suffer 
throughout her life, so long as she lives. As per her claim 
she is a widow and after the death of her husband she 
had taken it as a mission to bring up her children but in 
the meanwhile this incident took place. The facts and 
circumstances of the case which have been narrated 
before I.G. Police and Advocate-General, Punjab, her 
plight can be well-imagined by all of us. However, we 
direct I.G. Police to take personal interest in the 
investigation of the case. 
  
5. 
Let this case remain pending and I.-G. Police shall 
submit report personally after every week in respect of 
the progress of the case and even after the submission 
of challan it would be his responsibility to ensure that 
evidence is produced if ultimately evidence is not 
available then it would be the liability/responsibility of 
 
12
the police department to compensate her in any manner 
whatever they deem fit, under the circumstances. In the 
meanwhile I.G. Police shall take strict disciplinary action 
against officers/officials who are responsible for not 
registering the case ultimately after the happening of the 
incident as this Court observed time and again that it is 
the duty of the police to register the case without any 
delay and submit challan as far as possible within the 
period of fifteen days in terms of section 173, Cr.P.C. 
Reference in this behalf may be made to Hakim Mumtaz 
Ahmed and another v. The State PLD 2002 SC 590. 
 
17. 
  
Unfortunate aspect of the case is that IGP, KPK is taking 
responsibility as noted above upon his shoulder not once but twice that 
he had declined to register the case.  
18. 
  
Whereas on the other hand Bani Amin I.G.P, Islamabad, 
whose daughter-in-law (wife of his son Ali Amin) has been murdered, 
maintained that deceased was poisoned as according to him he had 
noticed that: (i) her hands and feet were bluish; (ii) there were 
wounds on her lips; and (iii) spots on cheeks. To substantiate his plea, 
he had also produced photographs of dead body, which were taken 
after her death. Contention so raised, seems to be true as per 
photographs. Not only this, he had also shown another photo to show 
that a sign of administering injection was visible on her forearm, which 
has also been confirmed by petitioner when picture was shown to her 
in Court.  
19. 
  
Prima facie these facts are sufficient to establish that 
police of KPK abused their powers in not registering of FIR on 
19.05.2013 as in view of principles discussed hereinabove, in the 
 
13
judgments and the law on the subject u/s 154 Cr.P.C. The IGP, KPK 
and his subordinates had no lawful authority to deny access to justice 
to petitioner. This is nothing but clearly a case of either inefficiency or 
criminal negligence of the police for the reasons best known to them, 
including external pressure on all of them but a law abiding officer is 
not supposed to deny due process of law to victim party.  
20. 
  
Importantly it is to be noted that during hearing of matter, 
a case has been registered vide FIR  No.366/2013, PS Town, District 
Peshawar dated 19.5.2013 u/s 302/34 PPC. Copy of FIR has been 
placed on record.  
21. 
  
Now turning towards the conduct of Islamabad Police, 
which needs no discussion as per facts noted above and same are 
sufficient to conclude that all of them acted with sheer criminal 
negligence, favouritism and inefficiency.  
22. 
  
The statement of IGP Bani Amin noted above is not 
acceptable as he being a senior police officer, without getting 
registered FIR at Peshawar brought back dead body of her daughter-
in-law to Islamabad where under his direction in respect of incident of 
Peshawar a case was got registered in Islamabad and subsequently a 
guard was posted on her grave, disclosure of which has been made by 
him during hearing when pointed out by Mst. Bibi Zahida, reason 
should be known to him. Inasmuch as, none amongst other officers 
whose named he has furnished himself, refused to accede his illegal 
demand including SP Jamil Hashmi, who now is trying to distance him 
from the illegal act.  
 
14
23. 
  
Learned Additional Advocate General pointed out that 
provincial government of KPK has constituted a committee to probe 
into the incident of killing of Mst. Waheeda on 19.05.2013 for non 
registration of the case in Peshawar and SSP Imran Shahid has been 
suspended.  
24. 
  
Learned Deputy Attorney stated that Federal Government 
has been conveyed about hearing of the case and registration of FIR at 
Shalimar Police Station. He also agreed that no FIR in respect of 
incident, which had taken place about the alleged unnatural death of 
Mst. Waheeda in the area of Town Police Station, Peshawar could have 
been registered at Shalimar Police Station.  
25. 
  
It is to be noted that heavy responsibility lies upon the law 
enforcing agencies, particularly, police to ensure that life and property 
of the people in terms of Article 9 of the Constitution is protected by 
them but we are constrained to observe that in our country police is 
not fulfilling its commitments efficiently, as a result whereof, law & 
order situation, all over the country, is worsening day-by-day. There 
could be acceptable reasons, on account of which the forces including 
the police, with other duties, maintain peace in society and bring the 
culprits to book without being influenced from anyone because once 
the accused is involved in an offence, he and his near ones try their 
best to ensure that he is saved from the clutches of law. 
26. 
  
We have in our police department such officers who are 
known for their efficiency, credibility, commitment and whenever any 
task is assigned to them, they do discharge their duty strictly in 
accordance with the Constitution and the law. However, justice does 
 
15
not mean that it should only be done to the culprits, because at the 
same time, victims/sufferers also deserve for the same and their 
grievance can only be redressed, if the accused are brought to book 
immediately.  
27. 
  
In the instant case, as we have noticed, petitioner Bibi 
Zahida is agitating that her daughter Waheeda @ Palwasha @ Honey 
has been killed by her husband Darya Khan and son Khalid-ur-Rahman 
but no one is ready to listen her, with the result she has to run from 
pillar to post and ultimately matter reached in Human Right Cell of this 
Court, where jurisdiction is exercised under Article 184(3) of the 
Constitution along with all other enabling provisions of law on 
individual or collective requests, to ensure enforcement of fundamental 
rights, particularly, in public importance cases.  
28. 
  
There could be numerous complaints against the police 
throughout in the country and some of them reach to this Court in its 
Human Rights Cell, which is functioning continuously to redress the 
grievances but despite of issuing directions, the law enforcing agencies 
failed to redress the grievances of the complainants. In this context 
reference to the reported judgment in the case of the Human Rights 
Case No.3212 of 2006 (ibid) may be made, wherein a lady had been 
waiting for a period of 2 ½ years but no one registered FIR of the 
murder of her son and ultimately she succeeded in getting the justice 
from this Court. This is one case, there could be more than that.  
29. 
  
Thus, under the circumstances we direct that: 
(i) 
The Federal and Provincial governments may take initiative 
for improving the professional efficiency of the police 
 
16
department enabling them to meet with all types of 
challenges to ensure that whosoever has taken the law in 
his hands, notwithstanding the status, he has to face the 
consequences.  
(ii) 
The Police Department in all the Provinces and Islamabad 
should strictly adhere to the Constitution and the law, 
while dealing with the criminal cases instead of showing 
any leniency or favouritism, either to the complainant or to 
the accused, whatsoever the case may be.  
(iii) 
As far as registration of the cases is concerned, they 
should follow the law under section 154 Cr.P.C and the 
principles discussed hereinabove in light of Muhammad 
Bashir’s case (ibid).  
(iv) 
As in the instant case FIR has been registered at Peshawar 
but on having seen the facts and circumstances, noted 
hereinabove, let the Federal and Provincial Governments 
ensure that no influence is used by any of the police 
officers who have already committed criminal negligence in 
not handling the case of the deceased lady. The competent 
authority should also deal with them in accordance with 
law on the subject.  
(v) 
To ensure transparent and independent inquiry, the Chief 
Secretary of KPK and Secretary Interior shall take steps to 
constitute a team of independent police officers who shall 
be responsible to conduct the investigation and submit 
challan in the court of law accordingly. Both these 
functionaries shall submit report compliance of the 
 
17
direction within a period of two weeks because any further 
delay in concluding the investigation of the case is likely to 
cause further injustice and prejudice to the petitioner.  
30.    
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.  
Chief Justice 
 
Judge 
 
Judge 
Announced in open Court on 24.07.2013 
At Islamabad  
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
Approved For Reporting