sharif2uys/supreme-court-of-pak-judgments huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
 
Civil Petition No.3213-L of 2019  
(Against order dated 2.10.2019 
[assed by the Lahore High Court 
Multan Bench Multan in W.P. 
No.10300/2019) 
 
 
Muhammad Islam 
 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State through Advocate General Punjab,  
Lahore, etc. 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Asaf Faish-ud-Din Verdeg, ASC  
along with M. Islam 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
N.R. 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
14.04.2020. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Apprehending arrest, 
Muhammad Islam, petitioner, seeks admission to bail; he is amongst 
array of the accused in a NAB reference; a dismissed constable of 
Special Branch, he is blamed to have lured, alongside co-accused, 
members of the public to invest in his Multan based travel agency, 
styled as “Bin Islam Travels & Tours” ; lucrative profits, offered by the 
accused, attracted no less than 61 investors in the business, 
subsequently turned out as farce; he attempted to pacify the 
disappointed clientele by issuing bank cheques, bounced upon 
presentation.  
 
In the backdrop of petitioner’s failure before a learned Division 
Bench of the Lahore High Court at Multan, his learned counsel 
contends that he was being hounded on trump up charges, 
manipulated by his adversary Zaheer Babar, a Police Inspector, 
currently serving as Station House Officer; that without prejudice to 
 Civil Petition No.3213-L  of 2019 
2
petitioner’s position, the accusation does not fall within the remit of 
NAB’s jurisdiction as the group of alleged affectees does not constitute 
“public at large”, leaving the issue to be more aptly dealt with in regular 
criminal/civil jurisdiction; projecting the agency as a non-governmental 
organization, the learned counsel concluded that the petitioner merely 
drew commission paid by various airlines and as such cannot be held 
responsible for betrayal of offered windfall to the investors. 
2. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
3. 
 
Principles, applicable to grant of anticipatory bail in a 
cognizable/non-bailable offence are by now well entrenched; these do 
not admit denials or parallel stories to ward off evidence/material prima 
facie constituting the offence nor the witnesses can be stripped off their 
credentials at the investigative stage so as to divert the usual course of 
law; a claimant must point out circumstances, reasonably suggesting 
abuse of process of law with strappings of mala fide, lurking behind the 
intended arrest; statements of 61 persons with diverse and different 
backgrounds, clamouring foul play cannot be summarily brushed aside 
to accommodate petitioner’s plea; same goes for a detailed and 
comprehensive investigative process, carried out pursuant to call up 
notice, followed by an inquiry, findings whereof, are prima facie pointed 
upon petitioner’s culpability for an offence wherein grant of bail is 
narrowly jacketed. Petition fails. Leave refused.   
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
14th April, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
MR. JUSTICE SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH 
 
 
Civil Petition No. 4387 of 2021 
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 
27.07.2021 of the High Court of Sindh, 
Karachi passed in CP No.D-4048/2021).  
 
Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah  
…Petitioner(s)  
Versus 
 
The State  
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s) 
: Mr. M. Makhdoom Ali Khan, Sr. ASC 
Mr. Mohsin Shahwani, ASC 
 
  
For Respondent(s)  
: Mr. Sattar Awan, Spl. Prosecutor 
Mr. Kashan, I.O.   
 
  
Date of Hearing 
: 21.10.2021 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
 
 
 
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.- For reasons to be 
recorded later, this petition is converted into appeal and 
allowed. The petitioner is granted bail on the merits of the 
case subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of 
Rs.10/- million with one surety in the like amount to the 
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The name of the 
petitioner shall be placed on the ECL subject to appropriate 
relief that may be granted by the learned Accountability Court 
on account of exigencies in his case.  
 
   
 
    
Judge   
 
 
 
 
 
Islamabad 
21.10.2021 
Naseer  
Judge 
Not approved for reporting
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE EJAZ AFZAL KHAN. 
MR. JUSTICE DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN. 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN.  
 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 481-K OF 2017.  
(On appeal against the judgment dt. 
12.08.2017 passed by the High Court of 
Sindh in Const. P. No. D1802 of 2017).  
 
Premier Battery Industries (Pvt) Ltd. 
 
 
  …Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
Karachi Water and Sewerage Board and another. 
   …Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
 
For the petitioner(s):  
Mr. Haider Waheed, ASC. 
 
For respondent No.1: 
Dr. Farogh Naseem, ASC 
 
For Govt. of Sindh:  
Mr.  Sibtain Mehmood, AAG, Sindh.  
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
07.12.2017. 
 
O R D E R   
 
 
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.- For the reasons to be recorded later, this 
petition being without is dismissed and the leave asked for is refused. 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
ISLAMABAD. 
07.12.2017. 
M. Azhar Malik
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL, CJ 
MR. JUSTICE SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH  
MRS. JUSTICE AYESHA A. MALIK   
 
 
Civil Petition No. 4899 of 2018 
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 
25.09.2018 
of 
the 
Peshawar 
High 
Court, 
Peshawar passed in W.P. 3870-P/2016).  
 
Crescent Textile Mills Ltd. Haripur 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
Versus 
 
Government 
of 
KP 
through 
Chief 
Secretary, Peshawar and others   
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s) 
: Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
  
For Respondent(s)  
: Nemo 
 
  
Date of Hearing 
: 14.02.2022 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
 
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, CJ.- There is a request 
for adjournment by the learned counsel for the petitioner 
who is not feeling well. The matter was twice adjourned on 
his request on 13.10.2021 and on 12.11.2021. There is no 
medical certificate available on record to indicate his 
present illness.  
2. 
 
The learned AOR submits that the application for 
adjournment was filed directly by the learned counsel. 
Consequently, he has no instructions in the matter and is not 
prepared with arguments in the case. In the circumstances, 
we are not inclined to adjourn this matter as it has not 
CP NO. 4899 OF 2018 
2
progressed for three successive dates of hearing on account 
of the unavailability of the learned counsel for the 
petitioner. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed for non-
prosecution.  
3. 
 
In order that the matter comes to the attention 
of the learned Members of the Bar this order shall be 
reported on the website.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice   
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Islamabad 
14.02.2022 
Naseer  
 
Judge 
Not approved for reporting
SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
Mr. Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.549-K OF 2019 
(Against judgment dated 4.10.2019 passed by High Court of Sindh at Karachi 
passed in CP. D.-182/2019)  
 
Gulab Khan 
…Petitioner (s) 
 
Versus 
 
The Chairman (NAB) and another 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner (s) 
: Mr. M. Anwar Tariq, ASC 
 
  
For the NAB 
: Mr. 
Sittar 
Sahil, 
Special 
Prosecutor NAB 
Mr. 
Hassan 
Akbar, 
Addl. 
Prosecutor General NAB with 
Jawaad Hassan, I.O./Deputy 
Director NAB 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Date of Hearing 
: 18.12.2019 
 
ORDER 
 
 
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.-Ghulab 
Khan, petitioner herein, seeks admission to bail. As Secretary 
Karachi Port Trust Officers Cooperative Housing Society, he is 
accused alongside others in NAB Reference No.11 of 2018 for having 
unauthorizedly doled out commercial/residential plots to the non-
members after interpolating minutes of the meetings; loss incurred 
by the society is estimated as 11.73 Billions. It is further alleged that 
he diverted the amounts so received to his own coffer. Having 
surrendered the plots as well as claims thereon, all the co-accused 
have since been released on bail by the High Court of Sindh. 
Considered distinguishly placed, he has been denied the concession 
vide impugned order dated 4.10.2019.  
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that 
notwithstanding the accusation, the petitioner, nonetheless, is 
identically placed and as such there was no occasion for the learned 
High Court to decline the request. It has been pointed out that 
CIVIL PETITION NO.549-K OF 2019.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
allegation of petitioner having diverted funds into his own chest is not 
supported by evidence and, thus, the distinction vis-a-vis the  
co-accused is not sustainable. The learned Law Officer, while 
faithfully contesting the motion, nonetheless has fairly conceded 
absence of any evidence to suggest diversion of the sale proceeds.  
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
4. 
 
It is admitted at all hands that barring the petitioner, all 
the co-accused, including those placed at a higher rung, have been 
released on bail. The entire land has since been retrieved by the 
society; the allottees had also abandoned their claims. In the above 
backdrop, petitioner’s culpability, alongside his colleagues in the 
crime can be best settled after recording of evidence, during the trial 
already in progress. The learned Law Officer has not been able to 
point out evidence suggestive of any aggravated role played by the 
petitioner in the scam; he cannot be treated differently. Sauce for the 
goose is sauce for the gander. This petition is converted into appeal; 
allowed. Petitioner/appellant shall be released on bail subject to his 
furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.One Million with one surety in the 
like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
Islamabad, the 
18th December, 2019 
“Not Approved For Reporting” 
Azmat/* 
 
JUDGE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
 
Civil Petition No.69-Q of 2015  
(Against the judgment dated 04.02.2015 passed by the High Court of 
Balochistan in C.P. No.631/2014)  
 
 
 
Jamal Khan 
 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
 
Secretary Home Department 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Abdus Saleem Ansari, ASC 
 
Mr. Manzoor Ahmed Rehmani, ASC 
 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
N.R. 
 
Date of hearing: 
09.09.2020. 
 
ORDER 
 
              Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Jamal Khan, petitioner, 
is in contest over a piece of land with rival claimants; they relied upon 
an arbitration agreement, purportedly executed way back on 2.2.2000; 
according to him, the instrument is fake as he never thumb marked 
any such agreement and, thus,  the respondents were liable to be 
prosecuted for forgery and fraud. After his failure with the local police, 
the petitioner approached a Justice of Peace albeit with no better fate; 
a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Balochistan declined to 
issue a direction for registration a criminal case on the ground that 
prima facie the dispute inter se the parties was of civil nature as both 
sides were asserting their divergent claims on a common land. 
Inordinate delay and availability of alternate remedies were other 
considerations that weighed with the High Court.  
2. 
 
 Learned 
counsel 
for 
the 
petitioner 
contends 
that 
accusation disclosed commission of a cognizable offence and as such a 
statutory duty was cast upon the Station House Officer to register a 
Civil Petition No.69-Q of 2015 
2
formal First Information Report so as to investigate the same and his 
failure was amenable to interference.  
3. 
 
Heard. 
4. 
 
Be that as it may, at the center of controversy is a thumb 
impression on an arbitration agreement being attributed to the 
petitioner, however, repudiated by him as forge. Report submitted by 
the police does not support petitioner’s claim and there is consensus 
that both sides are locked in a dispute of civil nature. Against the 
above peculiar backdrop, refusal by the Justice of Peace to issue 
direction to the Station House Officer and non-interference by the High 
Court therewith do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or flaw 
calling for intervention by this Court. Petition fails. Leave declined.    
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
9th September, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ. 
 
 
Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar 
 
 
Mr. Justice Saiyed Saeed Ashhad 
 
Civil Petition No.788 of 2006 
 
M/S Al-Mahmudia (Pvt) Ltd. 
…Petitioner 
VERSUS 
Pakistan through Secretary M/O Housing & Works, Islamabad etc. 
…Respondents 
 
For the petitioner: 
 
 
 
Mr. Hafiz. S.A. Rehman, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, AOR 
 
Respondents:  
 
 
 
N.R. 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
 
 
14.9.2006 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
  
Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ.—This petition has 
been filed against the judgment dated 5.6.2006 passed by Lahore High 
Court, Rawalpindi Bench.  
2. 
  
Learned counsel stated that in view of the judgment in the 
case of Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Education Vs. Pr.Dr. 
Anwar and two others (2006 SCMR 382) the petitioner is entitled for 
hearing before the competent authority by way of submitting his reply. In 
this behalf it may be noted that a larger Bench of this Court earlier 
delivered a judgment in the case of Federation of Pakistan Vs. Muhammad 
Tariq Pirzada and two others  (1999 SCMR 2744) and settled that hearing 
before Section Officer is sufficient. Relying upon the same judgment, 
learned High Court had observed that hearing before Section Officer will 
meet the requirements of Article 32 Order PO(1) 1983.  
2. 
  
We are inclined to agree with the judgment delivered by a 
larger Bench comparing the judgment which has been relied upon by the 
CP 788 of 2006 
2
learned counsel, therefore, the earlier view taken in Tariq Pirzada’s 
case(ibid) is approved and petition is dismissed holding that the High 
Court had rightly declined to interfere in the impugned order following the 
law laid down in the judgment delivered by a larger Bench of this Court. 
 
  
Petition is dismissed and leave declined. 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
14th September, 2006 
Nisar/* 
 
 
 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL, CJ  
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
C.P.95/2023, C.P.112/2023, C.P.113/2023 AND C.P.204/2023 
 
1. 
C.P.95/2023 
Muhammad Shaharyar Khan Mahar v. Election 
Commission of Pakistan through its Secretary, 
Islamabad 
 
 
 
2. 
C.P.112/2023 
Muhammad 
Ibrahim 
Jatoi 
v. 
Election 
Commission of Pakistan ECP, Islamabad and 
others 
 
 
 
3. 
C.P.113/2023 
Muhammad 
Ibrahim 
Jatoi 
v. 
Election 
Commission of Pakistan ECP, Islamabad and 
others 
 
 
 
4. 
C.P.204/2023 
Imtiaz Ahmed Sheikh and others v. Election 
Commission of Pakistan through its Secretary, 
Islamabad 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s) 
: Mr. Hussain Ali Almani, ASC video link 
from Karachi 
Mr. Salahuddin Ahmed, ASC video link 
from Karachi 
Mr. Zulfikar Khalid Maluka, ASC 
 
  
ECP 
: Mr. Muhammad Arshad, DG ECP 
Mr. Falak Sher, Consultant 
 
  
Date of Hearing 
: 15.08.2023 
 
  
O R D E R 
 
 
 
The ECP has defended its impugned action on the 
basis of Rule 10(4) of the Election Rules, 2017 (“Rules”). By that 
provision, the limits of a Tapedar Circle should not be breached in 
the delimitation process. In the present case, the contention of the 
petitioner is that the delimitation in 2018 election without violating 
Tapedar Circle was closer to the limits now being demanded by the 
petitioner. In the present case, the plea being taken by the 
petitioners is that the difference in the number of voters in each of 
the three Provincial Constituencies in District Shikarpur is more 
C.P.95/2023 etc 
2
pronounced and exceeds the variation limits set by Section 20(3) of 
the Elections Act, 2017 (“Act”). On a challenge made by the 
petitioners on the above grounds, the ECP passed an order under 
Section 22(1) of the Act holding that the information furnished by 
the petitioner was time barred. Whereas there is no limitation 
prescribed for bringing information to the notice of the ECP under 
the said provision. Therefore, the ground taken in the order is 
invalid.  
 
2. 
 
Be that as it may, the ECP is given an opportunity to 
consider whether it would be willing to answer the petitioner’s 
objection through a fresh order or would like to contest the matter 
before us.  
 
3. 
 
Re-fix soon after the vacations. 
 
 
 
 
 
Sd/- 
Chief Justice   
 
 
 
Sd/- 
Judge 
Islamabad 
15.08.2023 
Rashid/*  
 
Not approved for reporting
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
  
  
(Review Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE QAZI FAEZ ISA 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
 
 
C.R.P. NO.125/2017 IN 
CMA NO.363/2017 IN S.M.C. NO.18/2016 
(Review against judgment dated 13.3.2017, passed by this Court, in 
SMC No.18/2016, etc.) 
 
Rashid Ali Channa and others  
 
… Petitioner(s) 
Versus 
Muhammad 
Junaid 
Farooqi 
and 
others  
 
 
… Respondent (s) 
 
AND 
 
C.R.P. NO.130/2017 IN 
CMA NO.142/2017 IN S.M.C. NO.18/2016 
(Review against judgment dated 13.3.2017, passed by this Court, in 
SMC No.18/2016, etc.) 
 
(Asif Ali and others) 
 
AND 
 
C.R.P. NO.137/2017 IN S.M.C. NO.18/2016 
(Review against judgment dated 13.3.2017, passed by this Court, in 
SMC No.18/2016, etc.) 
 
(Fahad s/o Barkat Ali Soomro) 
 
AND 
 
C.R.P. NO.138/2017 IN S.M.C. NO.18/2016 
(Review against judgment dated 13.3.2017, passed by this Court, in 
SMC No.18/2016, etc.) 
 
Ashiq Ali and others   
 
… Petitioner(s) 
Versus 
Province of Sindh and others  
 
… Respondent (s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner (s) 
: Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Sr. ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
(In CRP No.125/2017) 
 
CRPs No.125/2017, etc. 
2 
 
 Ms. Asma Jahangir, Sr. ASC 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
(In CRP No.130/2017) 
 
 
 Sh. Ahsan-ud-din, ASC 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR  
(In CRP No.137/2017) 
 
 
 Syed Ali Zafar, ASC 
Mr. Tariq Aziz, AOR 
(In CRP No.138/2017) 
 
  
Respondent (s) 
: N.R. 
(In all cases) 
 
  
Date of Hearing 
: 02.05.2017 
  
 
ORDER  
 
  
 
SH. AZMAT SAEEED, J.- For the reasons to be 
recorded later on, these Civil Review Petitions are 
dismissed. 
 
 
 
 
      Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
      Judge 
 
 
Bench-IV 
Islamabad, the 
 
   
 
 
      Judge 
2nd May, 2017 
‘NOT APPROVED FOR REPORTING’ 
Safdar/*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(REVIEW JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE NASIR-UL-MULK 
MR. JUSTICE JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA 
MR. JUSTICE ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI 
MR. JUSTICE KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN 
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR 
MR. JUSTICE ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA 
MR. JUSTICE SARMAD JALAL OSMANY 
MR. JUSTICE AMIR HANI MUSLIM 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED 
MR. JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED 
MR. JUSTICE IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN 
MR. JUSTICE MUSHIR ALAM 
 
CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NOs. 328 & 329 OF 2013 IN 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NOs. 8 & 9 OF 2009 
 
General (R) Parvez Musharraf  
 
 
(In both cases) 
… Petitioner 
VERSUS 
1. 
Nadeem Ahmed (Advocate) and another 
(In CRP 328/2013) 
2. 
Sindh High Court Bar Association through  
its Secretary and others  
 
 
(In CRP 329/2013) 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Syed Sharif ud Din Pirzada, Sr. ASC 
assisted by Ch. Faisal Hussain, Advocate 
 
Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Sr. ASC 
assisted by Shazia Yasin, Advocate & Mr. 
osman Ibrahim, Advocate 
 
 
 
 
 
Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Ahmed Raza Kasuri, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
Barrister Muhammad Ali Saif, ASC 
Syed Zafar Abbas Naqvi, AOR 
 
For the Respondent (1): Mr. Rasheed A. Rizwi, ASC/Caveator 
Mr. Asim Iqbal, Secretary Sindh High 
Court Bar Association 
 
(In CRP 329/2013)  
 
Date of Hearing:  
28, 29 & 30.01.2014 
 
SHORT ORDER 
 
 
 
For reasons to be recorded later in the detailed 
judgment, we find the review petitions filed by petitioner General 
CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NOs. 328 & 329 OF 2013 IN 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NOs. 8 & 9 OF 2009 
2
(R) Parvez Musharraf to be barred by time and the precedent case 
law cited in this behalf to be distinguishable. Even otherwise, we 
have considered the submissions made on merits. The grounds 
urged by the petitioner’s learned counsel neither fall within the 
purview of review jurisdiction nor tenable on merit to warrant 
interference in the judgment under challenge. Both the petitions 
filed by him are accordingly dismissed. 
 
 
 
 
Islamabad, the 
30th of January, 2014 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT:  
Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik 
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
Criminal Appeal No.11-P/2014 
(Against the judgment dated 4.10.2013. 
of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar 
passed in Criminal Quashment Petition 
No.313/2011) 
 
 
Javed Khan 
…Appellant(s) 
VERSUS 
Ali Gohar Shah & others 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s) 
: Mr. Astaghfirullah, ASC 
Mr. Ajmal Khan, AOR 
 
 
 
For the State: 
: Barrister Qasim Wadud,  
Additional Advocate General, KPK 
 
For respondents No.1-3 
 
: 
 
Mr. Gul Sadbar Khan, ASC 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 30.04.2019 
 
ORDER 
 
  
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.-  Through leave of 
the Court, impugned herein is judgment dated 4.11.2013, whereby 
a learned Judge-in-Chambers of Peshawar High Court proceeded 
to quash First Information Report No.5 dated 6.11.2011 registered 
with Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Charsada. The 
controversy revolves around a dispute over immovable property; it 
was set off by Javed Khan, appellant being attorney of the owner.  
Learned Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is in a 
unison with the appellant to maintain that there was hardly an 
occasion for the learned Judge to quash the First Information 
Report structured upon allegations/evidence that warranted 
investigative as well as judicial scrutiny. Learned counsel for the 
respondent has not faced the appellant or the learned Law Officer 
with much enthusiasm and instead prays for opportunity to re-
agitate the plea before appropriate forums at the relevant time.  
Criminal Appeal No.11-P/2014 
 
2
  
Criminal appeal is allowed, impugned judgment dated 
4.11.2013 by the learned Judge-in-Chambers is set aside, while 
keeping respondents’ options wide open to re-agitate their plea, if 
so advised; bail granted to them shall hold field.  
 
     
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
Islamabad, the 
30th of April, 2019 
Ghulam Raza/* 
JUDGE