2026 P Cr (PLP)

Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, J.

The captioned constitution petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ( Constitution ), seeking quashment of FIR bearing No.18 of 2024 registered with Levies Station, Pishin for the offences punishable under sections 479, 475, 474, 422, 421,420, 419, 504, 506 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 ("P.P.C").

2. Relevant facts for disposal of the instant petition are that the complainant Bibi Shaista got lodged the FIR ibid against the petitioners averring therein that she is wife of Abdul Rab son of Abdul Moiz, who has passed away. Her father-in-law, Abdul Moiz (late) was the son of late Abdul Samad, who contracted two marriages. Abdul Moez (late) was the eldest son of the late Abdul Samad, whilst Syed Ahad Noor was the younger brother of Abdul Moez, who had died issueless, but the petitioners by means of fraud and by portraying themselves as the legal heirs and sons of the late Syed Ahad Noor, have obtained fake national identity card, local certificate and by misuse thereof, unlawfully managed to transfer the properties of Syed Ahad Noor (late) in their names.

3. The petitioners being aggrieved from registration of FIR ibid have filed the instant constitutional petition for quashment.

4. Heard. Record sussed out with the able assistance of learned counsel for the adversarial parities.

5. The paramount question before us is as to whether beside parents any other person, even relative can challenge the paternity of a child.

6. The presumption of legitimacy of a child born in wedlock stands firmly proved under Muslim personal law and Pakistan Statutory Law. Article 128 of Qanun e-Shahadat Order 1984 ( QSO ) provides for a presumption of legitimacy; a child born during the subsistence of valid marriage or within two years of its dissolution, is deemed to be the legitimate child. The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) is clear and well settled on the subject that the father may only deny paternity within a short post-natal period, commonly taken as 40 days.

7. The institution of Nasab (lineage) in Islamic Jurisprudence is one of the most sacred and protected aspects of personal law. The Holy Qur an and Hadith place strong emphasis on the protection of lineage to prevent social disorder, protect family honour and safeguard the rights of children. According to Imam Abu Hanifa (RA) as recorded in Al- Hidayah, Vol.II, paternity established by lawful wedlock cannot be disputed by a third person, and denied by others carries no legal value. According to him, paternity may be denied only at the time of birth, whereas according to Imam Muhammad and Imam Yusuf denial is permitted within the post-natal period of forty days. This legal framework protects the dignity of family ties and helps shield women and children from unfair or delayed claims of illegitimacy.

8. The apex Court in the case of Malik Muhammad Rafique v. Mst Tanveer Jahan (2015 PLD 30) held that paternity, if not disputed during the deceased s lifetime, cannot ordinarily be challenged by collateral relatives, such as brothers or sister after death, except where very strong and credible evidence justifies such scrutiny.

9. Be that as it may, in the present case, Petitioner No.1, Syed Abdullah was born on 01.01.1974 and Petitioner No.2, Syed Imdad Ullah was born on 19.03.1992. Their father Syed Ahad Noor passed away on 28.11.1998 and at the time of his death, petitioner No.1 was 24 years old and petitioner No.2 was of 6 years, but neither the complainant nor the petitioners father in his lifetime neither ever denied their relationship with the petitioners, nor raised any objection thereof. Furthermore, the petitioners have furnished ample oral and documentary evidence, affirming their status as the natural children of the Syed Ahad Noor (late). On the other hand, the complainant failed to bring forth a single credible document or witness to prove that the petitioners were adopted, or that they had acquired local certificates, educational documents and national identity cards through fraud and misrepresentation. It is also not established they had, by virtue of these documents, managed to transfer the properties of the Syed Ahad Noor (late) in their names.

10. The Supreme Court in the case of Moulvi Abdul Fateh v. Yar Muhammad (PLD 2024 SC 1223) reaffirmed the settled principle that a challenge to paternity or legitimacy can be made only by the putative father himself, and that too within the limited timeframe as prescribed under Article 128 of the QSO, 1984. The apex Court further held that the right to challenge paternity extinguishes with father s death, and any attempt by a third party to reopen such an issue amounts to an intrusion upon settled familial relations and an abuse of process. For ready reference, the relevant portion of para No.7 of Moulvi Abdul Fateh case is reproduced herein below;

7. Without prejudice to hereinabove factual and legal position as emerged in the instant case, we deem it appropriate to take cognizance of the settled legal position relating to challenging the parternity/legitimacy of a child in terms of judgments of this Court in the case of Laila Qayyum v. Fawad Qayum (PLD 2019 SC 449) and Munir Hussain v. Riffat Shamim (2023 SCMR 6) wherein it has been held that only a putative father, within the time prescribed in Article 128 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 can challenge the paternity of child. [Emphasis added]

11. No doubt, exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution is discretionary in nature, but such discretion can be exercised judiciously, fairly and reasonably having regard to all relevant circumstances in order to prevent abuse of process of law. We are also conscious that the powers under Article 199 (1) (a)(ii) of the Constitution are to be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases. This Court is empowered under Article ibid to judicially review any act done or proceedings taken by a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province, or a local authority and if such acts or proceedings are found to have been undertaken without lawful authority, the High Courts may declare them to be of no legal effect. The registration of an FIR and the conduct of an investigation are actions carried out by officers of the police department, who operate in connection with the affairs of a Province and consequently, such actions fall within the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 199 of the Constitution and the High Court is empowered to declare any act of a police officer to have been done without lawful authority and to be of no legal effect. In this regard reliance is placed on the case of FIA v. Syed Hamid Ali Shah (PLD 2023 SC 265). The relevant para No.6 of Syed Hamid Ali Shah s case are reproduced herein below;

6. Article 199(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution empowers the High Courts to judicially review the acts done or proceedings taken by the persons performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority and if find such acts or proceedings to have been done or taken without lawful authority, to declare them to be so and of no legal effect. The registration of an FIR and the doing of an investigation are the acts of officers of the police department (a provincial law enforcement agency) who perform functions in connection with the affairs of a Province and are thus amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 199(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution. The High Courts can declare such acts of the police officers, to have been made without lawful authority and of no legal effect if they are found to be so and can also make any appropriate incidental or consequential order to effectuate its decision, such as quashing the FIR and investigation proceeding. The acts of registering the FIR and conducting investigation by the officers of the FIA, in the present case, are also subject to said jurisdiction of the High Court, as they have been done by the officers performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation. [underlying is ours]

12. In light of the above, we have irresistibility concluded that the complainant remained silent for an indefinite period and has challenged the petitioners paternity after a considerable delay by lodging the FIR on 14.04.2024. This delay appears to be motivated by mala fide intent and is unsupported by any substantial evidence, henceforth, her allegations are deemed to be baseless, abuse of process of law and contrary to the dictum laid by the apex Court in the judgments supra.

13. For what has been discussed herein above, the petition is allowed and consequent thereto FIR No. 18 of 2024 registered with Levies Thana, Pishin is hereby quashed. JK/157/Bal. Petition dismissed.