MLD 2021

2021 PLP 1330 (MLD)

SHEREEN ZADA — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR FIA, ZONAL and 2 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Peshawar
Decided Date
2021-February-4
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2021 PLP 1330 (MLD)
Forum / Court Peshawar
Bench Members N/A
Parties SHEREEN ZADA — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR FIA, ZONAL and 2 others — Respondents
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP 1330 (MLD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2021 PLP 1330 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 PLP 1330 (MLD) (SHEREEN ZADA — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR FIA, ZONAL and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan

Representation

  • Mumtaz Ahmad for Petitioner.
  • Qazi Babar Irshad, D.A.G. with Danyal Tajik, Inspector Cyber Crime Wing, FIA for Respondents.
  • 3. Arguments of learned counsel for petitioner heard. Record perused.
  • 6. When confronted with this situation, learned counsel for petitioner frankly conceded that the petitioner is not shy from appearance before the Inquiry Officer provided he is well informed regarding the date of appearance and is dealt with in accordance with law.

Headnotes / Summary

Art.199

Constitutional petition

Protection from harassment

Scope

Grievance of the petitioner was that in the wake of a fabricated inquiry (by FIA) he was issued call up notice(s) to harass and arrest him

Contention of petitioner was that impugned notices were purposely communicated late with the only aim to harass and humiliate him

Validity

Court was not supposed to interfere with the process of inquiry wherein the main aim was to dig out the truth and to fix the responsibility upon the delinquent and thereafter to register a case, if made out

Constitutional petition was disposed of with direction to the petitioner to associate with the inquiry with direction to the FIA authorities not to keep the inquiry pending rather to proceed with it expeditiously.

Judgment & Decree

IJAZ ANWAR, J.

The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that on acceptance of this writ petition: i. The impugned office notices dated 28.12.2020 and 04.1.2020 (and any inquiry if pending) may be declared as illegal, without jurisdiction, without lawful authority, arbitrary, one sided, based upon mala fide and liable to be struck down. ii. The respondents may please be directed not to torture, harass, arrest the petitioner illegally, malafidely and without affording opportunity of defense (oral/documentary) as per relevant rules and law. iii. Any other relief, which is legal and proper in the circumstances not specifically prayed for may also be granted."

2. In essence, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents, in wake of a fabricated inquiry have issued him call up notice (s), harassing him and are bent upon his arrest.

3. Arguments of learned counsel for petitioner heard. Record perused.

4. The main concern of the petitioner is that the respondent FIA issued the impugned notices for appearance in an inquiry, however, the notices were purposely communicated late with the only aim to harass and humiliate him.

5. On query from the respondents, learned DAG stated that presently, the case is under inquiry and the petitioner is issued simple notice to answer such questions as may be put to him relevant for the purpose of inquiry No. 1029/2020 dated 16.11.2020. When such being the case and neither there is any coercive order or warrant, we do not think the petitioner is in any manner be considered aggrieved of the same.

6. When confronted with this situation, learned counsel for petitioner frankly conceded that the petitioner is not shy from appearance before the Inquiry Officer provided he is well informed regarding the date of appearance and is dealt with in accordance with law.

7. In view of the above, we are of the view that this Court is not supposed to interfere with the process of inquiry wherein the main aim is to dig out the truth and to fix responsibility upon the delinquent and thereafter to register a case, if made out. As such this petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to associate with the inquiry. Similarly, the respondents are also directed not to keep the inquiries pending rather to proceed with it expeditiously so that the impression that the FIA inquiries are kept pending for the purpose of humiliation is repelled. SA/35/P Order accordingly.