IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Crl. Misc. Application No.969 of 2025

[ Mst. Rubina wife of Muhammad Hanif vs. HC Kamran & Others ]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:                           order with signature(s) of Judge(s)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.         For orders on office objections.

2.         For hearing of case.

            -------------------------------------

Date of hearing : 17.02.2026

 

Mr. Muhammad Faisal Khan a/w Hamid Ali Ujjan, advocates for applicant

Mr. Tahir Hussain Mangi, A.P.G. a/w SIP Nadeem Shah

Respondents HC Kamran, HC Ajmal, PC SHahzaid, PC NOman and PC Mirza Hamza present

---------------------------------------------

 

Shamsuddin Abbasi, J.-  Applicant Mst. Rubina has impugned the order dated 30.09.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Karachi Central in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.2684/2025 whereby he dismissed her criminal miscellaneous application and refused to issue direction for registration of FIR.

 

2.         Learned counsel for applicant submits that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of criminal justice; that Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is bound to issue directions if cognizable offence is made out; that the applicant has produced CCTV footages but the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace has ignored this fact and acted contrary to the law; that the impugned order is a non-speaking order, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside, without direction to the concerned SHO to register the FIR as per verbatim of the applicant.

 

3.         On the other hand, learned A.P.G. supports the impugned order and submits that there is a criminal history of the applicant and her family members who are involved in several cases of narcotics, drug trafficking, police encounter cases and recovery of crime weapons, hence they are pressurizing the respondents who are police officials not to give evidence in Courts against the family members of the applicant.

 

4.         Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.P.G. and perused the material available on record.

 

5.         It is settled by now that Ex-Officio Justice of Peace should not act in a mechanical manner for issuing directions to the police for registration of FIR. In the present case, police report was called from the concerned police station, which reflects that close relatives of the applicant, including her husband, sons and son-in-law are involved in drug trafficking cases. Record reflects that applicant’s family also approached to different forums against the police officials. Contention raised by learned A.P.G. that applicant wants to pressurize the police officials who are witnesses in the cases against her husband, sons and son-in-law. Learned counsel for applicant further contended that the police party has beaten her daughter Mst. Sana and due to torture she got miscarriage and lost her baby and the offence of Isqat-e-Hamal is made out. In this respect the applicant did not endorse any medical record issued by a medical officer to substantiate her claim.

 

            I am of the view that the refusal by learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace for issuance of direction to the SHO for registration of FIR does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or flaw. The impugned order, on the face of it, is just, proper and speaking one. The learned counsel for the applicant has also failed to point out any material illegality or serious infirmity committed by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace while passing the impugned order which, in my humble view, is based on fair evaluation of record, hence calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Cr.PC. Instant criminal miscellaneous application, bereft of any merit, stands dismissed. The applicant, however, shall be free to avail appropriate remedy admissible under the law before proper forum, if she is so advised.

 

            Above are the reasons of my short order dated 17.02.2026.

 

                                                                                                J U D G E

Gulsher/PS