IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Crl. Misc. Application No.1131 of 2025

[ Muhammad Mansoor son of Islamuddin vs. The State & Others ]

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

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

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

1. For orders on office objections.

2. For hearing of case.

3. For hearing of M.A. No.18645/2025

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

24.02.2026

Mr. Jamil Ahmed Javed, advocates for applicant

Mr. Tahir Hussain Mangi, A.P.G.

Mr. Muhammad Bilal Raza, for respondent

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

Shamsuddin Abbasi, J.- Applicant Muhammad Mansoor son of Islamuddin has impugned the order dated 13.12.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Karachi Central in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.3843 of 2025, whereby he dismissed criminal miscellaneous petition, filed by respondent No.4 Zeeshan Ahmed Shamsi in the following terms:

“8. In the circumstances, the petitioner's statements and documents disclose prima facie offences under sections 448 and 506 PPC. The petition is allowed. The SHO is directed to record the petitioner's statement forthwith, register an FIR, and conduct a thorough, impartial investigation in accordance with law. The investigation shall, inter alia:

(i) obtain and examine original purchase/allotment, payment, and possession documents from both sides;

(ii) record statements of the builder/contractor (Asadullah Sherani) and the General Secretary who supported Mansoor, to resolve Inconsistencies;

(iii) verify the authenticity of the builder files and any sale instruments claimed by Mansoor;

(iv) scrutinize utility records, m dates, consumption patterns, billing names, and any water connection documentation:

(v) investigate the alleged tenancy of 04.11.2025 by securing the tenancy agreement, rent receipts, and tenant particulars;

(vi) identify and record statements of the two persons who allegedly issued threats, including CCTV or witness corroboration; and

(vii) secure any evidence of forced entry, lock replacement, and possession change.

If, in the course of investigation, forgery or use of forged documents is detected, appropriate sections (including sections 468-471 PPC) may be added. No observation herein shall prejudice the parties civil remedies or be construed as a finding on ownership or final possession.”

2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of criminal justice; that subject property is purchased by applicant and is enjoying its possession; that during renovation work of his property he was attacked by 4 culprits, which he reported to concerned police; that builder is habitual criminal and has issued duplicate files to different persons, he is a grabber and for that reason SBCA had not issued completion certificate of the building; that registration of criminal case will cause damage to his reputation, hence the impugned order may be set aside.

3. On the other hand, learned A.P.G. as well as learned counsel for respondent support the impugned order and submit that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned, which has been passed in accordance with law.

4. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.P.G., learned counsel for respondent 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 present applicant, who is proposed accused in Cr. Misc. Petition No.3483/2025, did not join the enquiry on account of his ailment but he claimed to be holder of a builder file to be produced before the Court. the record produced before Ex-Officio Justice of Peace reflects the positive assertion by the Project’s building of sale and possession to Respondent No.4 Zeeshan; present applicant Mansoor did not produce the title documents claimed to be owner of the property.

6. I am of the view that directions issued by learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace 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 he is so advised.

J U D G E

Gulsher/PS