1

?/|-\

\J IN THE PESHAWARHIGH qOURT.

PS-SHAW4R.
lJudicial Department]

Writ Petition No.1465-P of 2024

Shandanda Gulzar Khan daughter of Gulzar Khan,

r/o Mashogagar Badh Ber Peshawar.

Petitioner (s)
VERSUS

Federation of Pakistan,
Through Secretary Interior, Islamabad and others

Respondent (s)

For Petitioner (s) :- Mr. Muhammad Muaazam Buff. &

Bassam Ahmad Siddiqui. Advocates
For Respondent (s) Mr. Sana Ullah DAG along with IWS
Ali Raza SI. Nand Lal AD
(Investigation). CCRC Lahore and
Arshad IqbalAD [eeal).

Date of hearing: 06.06.2024

Date of announcement:-
@ob-rrr,
JIJDGMENT

ISHTIAO IBRAHIM. CJ.- By invoking the constitutional

jurisdiction of this court under Article 199 of the Constitution

of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 ("Constitution"),

Shandana Gulzar Khan, the petitioner, an elected Member

National Assembly (66MNA") NA-30 Peshawar, is aggrieved

from a notice dated 09.03.2024 ("impugned notice"), issued

under section 160 Cr.P.C. by Enquiry Officer FIA/CCRC,

Lahore, whereby she been directed to appear in person before

the Enquiry Officer in an Enquiry No.598/24 pending at Cyber

Crime Reporting Centre Lahore, situated at Building 8-B Block

 2

G, Gulberg-Il Lahore, for recording her statement. The

impugned notice is reproduced below:-

FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

CYBER CRIME REPORTING CENTER
8-b. Block G. Gulbers II. Lahore

NOTICE FOR ATTENDANCE U/S 160 Cr.PC

To,
Name Shandana Gulzar Khan d/o Gulzar Khan
r/oVillage Mashogagar, Kohat road Peshawar.

CNIC: 61101-4516665-2

Subject:- ENOUIRY NO.598/24 OF FIA. CYBER

CRIME REPORTING CENTRE. LAIIORE.

FIA, Cyber Crime Reporting Centre, Lahore is conducting a probe

on the above titled enquiry. Details are mentioned below:-

Name of complainant: Shoaib Mirza

Name of the Alleged: Shandana Gulzar Khan

Enquiry No. 598124

Gist of allegation: Highly intimidating campaign

against State functionaries and
creating violence in public and
society through information system

2. Therefore, you are directed to appear in person before the

undersigned to record your statement at FIA Cyber Crime Reporting
Centre on 14.03.2024 at 02.00 PM, situated at Building 8-B Block G,
Gulberg-Il Lahore for fair trial process. You are also directed to bring
your original CNIC and the relevant record/documents with you.

In case of non-apnearance. it will be assumed that vou have nothing to

present or state in Your defence.

Ali Raza
SUB INSPECTOR
ENQUIRY OFFICER
FIA/CCRC/LHR
Dated:09.03.2024

Non-compliance to the notice is nunishable under law. therefore vour

willful non-obedience of the order will render vou liable for criminal
proceedinss u/s 174 PPC 1860.
 3

\ L It is averred in the writ petition that the impugned notice

having no date, time, place of occurrence, gist of allegations,

sections of law and other necessary details is against

the mandate of Circular No.FIA/CCW-

HQ/DIR/OPS/ISB/2021/6035-42 dated 28.06.2021, issued in

pursuance ofjudgment rendered by the worthy Islamabad High

Court, Islamabad, in Writ Petition No.2939/2020 as well as

various rules of the Prevention of Election Crime Investigation

Rules, 2018. It is further averred that the impugned notice being

unlawful, against the law, void ab inilio, in conflict with the

fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under the

Constitution, based on mala fide and political victimization is

liable to be set at naught, hence, the petitioner seeks issuance of

the following writ:-

i. The respondents may be required to

act in accordance with law and if they intend
to initiate any inquiry then they must disclose
suffrcient information in the notice so that the
petitioner know the purpose for being
summoned and the respondents must inform
the petitioner of the fact, point, allegation,
offence, dateof registration of enquiry and
specified matter in the notice so that the
petitioner can furnish/state her position in
response thereto.

ii. Consequent to above, the impugned

notice may be set at naught, dismissed and set-
aside with a direction to the respondents to
observe the due process and if they intend to
proceed with the so-called enquiry, the
proceedings to that effect may be conducted
and carried out in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
 4

where the petitioner permanently resides,

elected as the Member National Assembly and

remains with the electorate to perform her

function as their chosen representative and the
same is the place to be deemed as the core of
her entire activities carried out by her as
public service in the public interest.
iii. Any other relief which though has not
for but is found
been specifically prayed
appropriate may also be granted to the
petitioner.

Besides, the petitioner has also sought the following interim

relief.
"Interim Relief. In the meanwhile the
operation of impugned notice dated

09.03.2024 and the further proceeding to that

effect in the enquiry No.598/24 of FIA Cyber
Crime may please be suspended till the final
disposal of case in hand with a direction to the

respondent that no adverse action shall be

taken against the petitioner".

3. On 18.03.2024 when the instant petition came up for

hearing, Mr. Sanaullah, the worthy DAG, representing the

Federation, raised the following two preliminary objections:-

i. That as the impugned notice has

been issued by the Enquiry Officer FIA

Circular Lahore, therefore, cannot be

questioned before this court in
constitutional jurisdiction under Article
199 of the Constitution because of lack
of the territorial jurisdiction in the
matter'I

ii. That as enquiry against the petitioner

is at very initial stage; therefore, in such

 5

; premature stage constitutional

jurisdiction of a High court under
Article 199 ofthe Constitution cannot be
pressed into service:'

4. since complaint against the petitioner was not before the

court, therefore, this court directed respondents No.2 and 3 to

submit para-wise comments accompanied by complete record

of the inquiry in consequence of which the impugned notice has

been issued and the case was posted to 25.03.2024; however,

till then, interim relief, that "no adverse action shqll be taken
against the petitioner",was granted in her favour.

5. In compliance of the order (ibifi, the respondents have

filed the requisite comments, wherein the following facts of the

case has been furnished:-

"That FIA CCRC, Lahore has initiated an

enquiry against the petitioner on the basis of
written complaint filed by one Shoaib Mirza
complainant wherein he has alleged that a
video featuring interview of the petitioner
was circulated wherein she has accused
Maryam Nawaz (The sitting chief Minister
of Punjab) for murder of one Zille Shah
deceased while the local police of the
Punjab had already concluded investigation
into Zille Shatr's death case; that petitioner's
involvement in disseminating such
accusations constitutes as highly
intimidating campaign against the State

functionaries.
That, during the course of the
enquiry, a technical report was obtained
 6

\, from Technical Expert, confirming the

existence of the video on the Twitter
Account of the petitioner. Subsequently,
impugned notice was issued to the petitioner
by the Enquiry officer directing her to
appear in person before him for recording
statement on 14.03.2024.

Further more an intimation letter

under section 52(2) of the Majilis-e-Shoora
Privileges and Immunities Act, 2023 was
dispatched to the Secretary of the National
Assembly, for information.
It is asserted in the comments that the
impugned notice issued to the petitioner by
the Enquiry Officer is entirely lawful and in
accordance with due process and the
relevant legal provisions. It is pertinent to
mention that the said notice maintains the
principles outlined in the judgment of Rana
Muhammad Arshad Vs Federation of
Pakistan, contrary to the petitioner's
assertions".

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the

impugned notice has been issued by the Enquiry Officer of the

Federal Investigation Agency (FlA) Lahore in consequence of

pending inquiry and the FIA is functioning/running its affairs

under the Federation all over the country; that if a Body,

Institution or an Authority being run/ functioning under the

Federal Government, passes any order or initiates any action

and such order or action affects any person at the place other

than the place of the Office of such Body, Authority or

 7

.)
.-lt Institution, such aggrieved person shall have a cause of action

to agitate about his/her grievance within the territorial

jurisdiction of the High court in which the said order/action

is

affecting him/her; that petitioner is pennanent resident of Badh

Ber Peshawar and the impugned order is affecting her; that

nothing in black & white is available on file to show as to

where the alleged offence was commiued and where the twitter

account of the petitioner was used. He further contended that

petitioner is a lady elected MNA of NA-30 peshawar and is

dealing with her day to day affairs in the province of the

Khyber Paftfitunkhwa; therefore, this court has got the

jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition. In support of his

arguments he placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the

Hon'ble Supreme court in case titled, ,,Federal Governmeni

throush Secretary Interior Government of Pakistan vs Ms.

Awan Ali and others" (2017 SCMR 1179).

7. On merit, he contended that the complaint before FIA is

politically motivated with mala fide intention just to harass and

victimize the petitioner; that the complaint does not bear the

date and diary number of the office of FIA as well as the date,

time and place of occurrence; that allegations in the impugned

notice are different from the allegations in the complaint which

manifestly shows the mala fide intention of the respondents just

to harass the petitioner, hence, requested for setting aside of the

impugned notice.
 8

8. conversely, the worthy DAG contended that as the enquiry is

being conducted by the cyber crime Reporting centre Lahore,

therefore, this court has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the

instant petition. In support of his arguments he placed reliance on

the judgments of worthy Islamabad High court Islamabad, reported

as ( 2017 P cr L J 1540) and (2016 p cr L J l05o and worthy

Sindh High Court (PLD 2020 Sindh 09).

9. on merit he contended that as the enquiry is in its initial stage

and the petitioner has been directed by the Enquiry officer to appear

in person before him for recording statement and it is yet to be

determined after conclusion of the enquiry as to whether the

petitioner is made accused or a witness; therefore, in such a

premature stage constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the

constitution of the High court cannot be pressed into service. In

support of his arguments he placed reliance on the judgments

reported as 2021 MLD 1330 and 2022 P Cr L J 245.

10. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

parties advanced at the bar and perused the record annexed with the

petition as well as gone through the law on the subject.

11. First we are going to meet the question of jurisdiction of this

court. In the year 2016 the Federal Govemment promulgated

Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act,2016 ("PECA"). Object of the

PECA, as is manifest from its preamble, was to prevent unauthorized

acts with respect to information system and provide for related

offences as well as mechanisms for their investigation, prosecution,

trial and international cooperation with respect thereof and for

matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto. In exercise of

powers conferred by section 5l of the PECA r/w section 29
 9

thereof the Federal Govemment was preased to make the

Prevention of Electronic crimes Investigation Rules, 20lg

("PECA Rules"). Under Rule 3(l) of the PECA Rules, the

Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) has been designated as

investigation agency for the investigation of offences under the

Prevention of PECA and it shall discharge its function under

the Act and the Rules through the cyber crime wing under the

supervision of the Director General. under Rule 5 of the PECA

Rules, the Director General is responsible for overall

administration of the cyber crime wing and is authorized to

exercise the powers of the investigation Agency under the

PECA 2016. The impugned notice has been issued against the

petitioner under section 160 Cr.P.C., but it does not contain the

gist of allegation, therefore, is against the circular

No.FIA/CCW-HQ/DIR, OPS/ISB/2021156035-2 dated

28.06.2021 and Standing Operating Procedure issued thereafter

wherein it 'has been made obligatory upon the FIA to

specifically state the section of law of the alleged offence, the

date of registration of enquiry, fact, point and specified matter.

The impugned notice is also silent about the date, day, time and

place of the occurrence. Similarly, the complaint does not bear

the date of institution and diary number of the office. In such

eventualities, the place of occurrence is still unknown. It is also

not discernible from the available record that the place of

occnrrence is falling within the original areaof the inquiry Officer.

Besides, the FIA being a Federal Institution is working/functioning

 l0

throughout the country. The object of determination ofjurisdiction

is

the first step of any/all adjudication(s). A similarly structured

question about territorial jurisdiction came up before the Apex

court in the case of Asshar Hussainl. The High court of the

East Pakistan had dismissed a petition that impugned order of

the Tribunal/EC in respect of provincial constituency of East

Pakistan. The august Apex court allowed the appeal against the

judgment of the High court of East pakistan in the following

manner (terms): -

"The decision given by the High Court of fust pakistan

that it has no jurisdiction to issue a writ or a direction to
the election Commission of PaHstan is thus unreasonable
in law from every point ofview. The election Commission
ls "a oersont' or $authority,t which excrcises
in the
Province of East Pakistan functions in connection with
their affairs of the Centre namelv. eleclion to the office
of President. National Assembly and the provincial
Assemblies and for holding a Referendum as providedfor

in the Constitution. In that, the Commission ls subiecl to

the iurisdiction of Hish Court under Article gSQt(atfil
notwithstandins that ils main office and secrelarial are
localed in the Province ofllest Pakistan".

In the case of Federal Governmenf , the worthy Sindh High

Court was approached against a notification issued by the

Federal Government whereby on the recommendation of the

Punjab Government, Ms. Ayan Ali, was prevented from

departure at Karachi Airport for being enlisted in the Exit

Control List (ECL). The matter eventually arrived before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble apex court in the

judgment (supra) rejected the argument of the Federal

Asghar Hussalnvs, Elealon Commbslon ofPa*lsan (PLD 1968 SC 387)
The Fedeml Govertrment ys. Ayan All and othen (2017 SCMR f 179)
 ll
('- Government relating to the territorial jurisdiction of sindh High

Court by relying upon the LPG'r case (2009 CLD |498) and

held as under:-

"As resard the auestion of territorial iurisdiction, it

hardlv need emohasis thot the imousned
notification/memorandum has been issued bv the
Federal Government which functions all over the
country and since the respondent No.l resides in the
Karachi and has a right and choice to proceed
abroad through Jinnah International Airport Karachi
and infoct at least twice earlier she had proceeded to
go abroad through Jinnah International Airport
Karachi, though she was stopped owing to the earlier
not ification/memorandum and ther efore, the emb argo
placed on her leaving the country has in fact taken
place at Karachi, which prevention in all lilrelihood
was to be repeated at Karachi in pursuance of the
third notificatiordmemorandum and thus giving rise
to a cause of action against a third
notification/memorandum at Karachi because of its
taking ffict there. It is now well settled that the
Federal Government. thoush mav have exclusive
resldence or location at Islamabod would stlll be
deemed function all over the countrv". kmphasis
supplieil.

Similarly, in case of Messrs Al-Iblaeh Limiled, the issue of

territorial jurisdiction of the High Court was tackled in the

following manner: -

"The Central Government has set up a Copyright

Board for the whole of Pakistan and it performs
functions in relation to the affairs of the Federation
in all the Provinces. Hence. any order oassed by lt or
proceedinss taken bv it in relation to anv oerson ln
anv of the four Provinces of Pakistan would sive the
Hish Court of fie Pruvince, in whose teffitorv the

3 Mesrrs At-Iblegh Umlted, I.chorr vs. The Copyright Board Krnchl rnd othcn (l9ES SCMR 75S)
 t2

hear the case.

It was further observed that: -

"ll/e agree and are of the opinion that both the

Lahore High Court as well as the Sindh High Court
had concutent jurisdiction in the matter and both
the Courts could have entertained a lVrit petition
against the impugned orders in the circumstances of
this case. We, therefore, hold that the Lahore High
Court has illegally refused to exercise jurisdiction in
this case. The case will, therefore, go back lo the
Lahore High Court for the decision of the Writ
Petition tiled by the appellant before it for decision
on merits, in accordance with law".

In the case of LPG Association of Pakistan throueh

Chairmana, the territorial jurisdiction of Hon'ble Lahore High

Court, Lahore, was questioned on the ground that the contesting

respondents were functioning at Islamabad; while the impugned

notice was issued by the Commission at Islamabad and, as

such, the Hon'ble Lahore High Court had no jurisdiction to

entertain the petition. However, the Hon'ble Lahore High

Court, Lahore, rejected the objection in the following terms:-

"From the judgments cited at the Bar on both the

sides, the portions whereof have been extensively
reproduced, the following ratio is deducible:-

(A) The Federal Government or anv bodv oolitic

or a corporation or a statulorv authoritv
havins exclusive residence or location at
Islamabad with no office at anv other olace
in anv of the Provinces. shall still be deemed
to function all over the countm.

a LPG Association ofPekistan through Chairman vs. Federel ofPakistrn thruugh Secret!ry Mtristry
ofPetroleum end Nrturrl Resourccs, Islamabad rnd othcn (2009 CLD 1498)
 l3

(B) f tucn ro"er"me"t. t

tstamaOad, tA n anus

caofual sucn oarn sn

actnn to asttate aboil
nerctAorUturlW

(C) This shall be more so in the cases where a

party is aggrieved or a legislative instrument
(including any rules, etc) on the ground of it
being ultra vires, because the cause to sue
against that law shall accrue to a person qt
the place where his rights have been affected.
For example, if a law is challenged on the
ground that it is confiscatory in nature,
violative of the fundamental rights to
property; profession, association etc, and any
curb has been placed upon such a right by a
laut enforced at Islamabad, besides there, it
can also be challenged within the jurisdiction
of the High Court, where the right is likely to
be fficted:
In this context, illustrations can be given, that
if some dutyhax has been imposed upon the
withdrawal of the amounts by the account
holders from their bank account and the
aggrieved party is maintaining the account at
Lahore, though the Act/law has been passed
at Islamabad, yet his right being fficted
where he maintains the account (Lahore), he
also can competently initiate a writ petition in
Lahore besides Islamabad; this shall also be
true for the violation of any right to
profession, fbeing conducted by a person at
Lahore, obviously in the situation, he shall
have a right to seek the enforcement of his
right in any of the two High Courts.

(D) On account of the above, both the Islamabad

and Lahore High Courts shall have the
concutent jurisdiction in certain matters and
it shall not be legaily sound or valid to hold
that as the Federal Government etc. resides in
Islamabad, and operates from there; the
assailed order/action has also emanated from
Islamabad, therefore, it is only the Capital
High Court which shall possess the
jurisdiction. The domindnt purpose in such a
situation shall be iruelevant, rather on
account of the rule of choice, the
 t4

plaintffipetitioner shall have the right to

choose the forum ofhis convenience,,.

12. After thoroughly examining the above-referred case law, we

are firm in our view to hold that an action of a constitutional or

Federal Authority that affects a person or group of persons in a

particular Province, can be challenged in the High court of the

Province in constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the

constitution where the cause of action arose, or the effect was

received/suffered, regardless of the location of the head-offrce of

such Authority. Therefore, we hold that no doubt FIA is the Federal

Institution/body and the impugned notice has been issued by the FIA

cyber crime Lahore, but the petitioner being permanent resident of

the Peshawar Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, a lady MNA and affected by the

impugned notice in this Province can question the impugned notice

before this court, particularly, in the circumstances when it is not

certain from record that from where the alleged material was

generated, uploaded and made viral on the alleged twitter Account of

the petitioner. In this view of the matter, this court has got the

territorial jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition.

13. Adverting to the substance of the issue at hand, the

petitioner contends that she is being unfairly targeted for

political reasons under the guise of prosecution. She claims that

the complaint supposedly triggering the issuance of the

impugned notice is highly questionable, lacking crucial details

such as a date, diary receipt number and essential information

regarding the alleged offense such as the gist of allegations, the

duy, date, time and place of occurrence; that it merely

summarizes the accusation as a "Highly intimidating campaign

 l5

against state functionaries and creating violence in public and

society through information system.,' Contrary, in the

comments the respondents have furnished allegations of the

complaint against the petitioner which are totally different from

the one mentioned in the impugned notice.

14. According to the principles of Natural Justice,

constitutional provisions, and statutory safeguards, an authority

must promptly notiff an individual of the charges against

him/her allowing adequate time to prepare a defense or gather

evidence, as necessary. At the cost of repetition, impugned

notice is excessively ambiguous, making it difficult to provide a

suitable response. The august Supreme Court, in the case

titled "Dr. Arsala Iftikhar v. Malik Riaz Hussain and

othersrt. 2012 Supreme Court 9031, while

interpreting the provisions of the National Accountability
Ordinance, 1999 has observed and held as follows:-

'The clear and unambiguous pronouncements given

in the case titled Ghulam Hussain Baloch and
another v. Chairman, National Accountability
Bureau Islamabad and 2 others (PLD 2007 Karachi
469) were violated by NAB in its fwo leffers. In the
cited precedent NAB has been given express
guidelines as to its responsibilities while summoning
or requiring the attendance of persons/witnesses in
an inquiry. As per ratio of the case, before
summoning a person to attend, NAB was duty bound
to identify and particularize the information sought
from any witness etc. and to state the nexus between
such information and the subject of the inquiry being
conducted by NAB. [t was observed by the Court
that "while calling [for] the information from any
 t6

person, the person must be informed of the fact,

point, allegation, offence, name of accused,
specified matter, if any, concerning the matters ... in
the notice so that the person can furnish such
information"
commenting on the ruling of the apex court, Islamabad High

Court has remarked as follows

"5. It is noted that the above guidelines regarding

the responsibilities of an investigating officer while
summoning a person would also be attracted in case
of proceedings relating to criminal offences dealt
with by the Agency. The officials, particularly
investigating officers of the Agency, are public
functionaries vested with expansive powers to
investigate and inquire into criminal offences. It is
their duty to ensure that their actions are not in
breach of the essential and elementary principles of
It is their obligation to exercise coercive
fairness.
powers in such mode and manner that does not
appear to be arbitrary nor that powers are being used

recklessly for other than bona fide purposes. . . ."

Next the court proceeded to issue guidelines to be observed by

the respondents in issuing processes, and which, purportedly,

were implemented by the respondents:

Keeping in view the above discussion and having

regard to the paramount public importance of
protecting the constitutionally guaranteed rights,
particularly under Articles 19 and 19 A of the
Constitution, it is observed and directed as follows;
i. The Director General of the Agency is
expected to formulate guidelines for the
investigating officers, inter alia, having regard to the
principles highlighted in the aforementioned
judgment of the august Supreme Court. It is further
expected that the Agency will consider prescribing
special guidelines regarding proceedings against
persons engaged in the profession ofjournalism on
 t7

f
account of the profound effect on the freedom of
press and independence of a journalist when the
coercive powers are abused, giving rise to a
perception of retaliation to professional functions
performed. In this regard the Agency may consult
the key stake holders. "

The respondents/FlA, while adhering to the directives of the

Islamabad High Court, issued a circular outlining the essential

protocols to be followed by the Agency when issuing processes,

etc. A copy of the circular dated 28106121, is on file as

Annexure-E with the comments. Among the directives to be

followed by the FIA and its functionaries in conducting

investigation etc. is one speciffing the obligation to inform the

summoned individual about the essence of the allegation, etc.

The directive reads esl Gisl of allegations (facts, point, section of law

applicable and specified matter).

Respondents claim that they have adhered to and complied with

the said obligation. As referred above, the impugned notice

contain the gist of following allegation:

Gist of allegation: Highly intimidating campaign

against State functionaries and
creating violence in public and
society through information
system

This court differs with the respondents' assertion of meeting the

criteria outlined for issuing processes in the provided circular.

Upholding the principle of natural justice, one of the oldest

tenets, it is imperative that individuals are promptly informed of

the specific charge or allegations against them at the outset of

any legal proceedings. Referring to the specifics of the current

 l8

case, the circular, which contains guidelines, clearly mandates that

factual details must accompany the gist of the allegation provided to

the respondent or accused. Mere presentation of a generic statement

regarding the commission of an offense cannot be considered

sufficient to convey pertinent information or fulfill the respondents'

mandated responsibilities. For example, an individual implicated or

suspected of involvement in a robbery should be informed of the

precise particular facts of the offense rather than being notified of

the suspicion harbored by the body of his involvement in a serious

offense against life and property. Labels such as "offense against life

and property" or "serious campaign for intimidation and violence"

categorize offenses rather than specifying a particular offense. Under

the constitutional safeguard of the right to a fair trial, individuals

prosecuted or facing legal proceedings have the right to be informed

of the charges against them. The specifics of the case are crucial,

particularly in criminal charges, as each case differs in its factual

context. An executive body tasked with investigating offenses bears

both moral and legal obligations to proceed with caution, diligence,

and respect for the constitutional rights of the public. Authoritatively

summoning an individual without adequately informing them of the

nature of the charge represents the misuse of power, which is

unequivocally prohibited in a well-functioning justice system.

15. For what has been discussed above, we find the impugned

notice in violation to petitioner's fundamental right to due process of

law. The mechanism adopted by the respondents being against the

law, smells mala Jide on their part, therefore, the impugned notice is

liable to be set at naught. We are mindful of the fact that superior

courts normally do not interfere in the matter when it is in

 t9

v investigation phase, but when mala /ide is floating on the face of

record then in such like situation the courts cannot sit as silent

spectators. In case titled, 6tAnwar Khan vs State"

(1996 scMR 24) it has been held by the Hon'ble supreme court that

where investigation is mala fide or without jurisdiction, the High

court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is

competent to correct such proceedings and pass necessary order to

ensure justice and fair-play. The Investigating Authorities do not

have the entire and total authority of running investigation according

to their whims. Guidance may also be derived in this regard from

cases titled, 6'Shahnaz Begum v Honourable Judge of the High

Court of Sindh and Balochistan (PLD 1971 SC 677), $Rlaja

Rustam Ali Khan VS Muhammad Hanif' (1997 SCMR 2008),

"Ghulam Sarwar Zardari vs Piyari AIi alias Piyaro" (2010

scMR 624).

16. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned

notice dated 09.03.2024 issued by Enquiry Officer FIA/CCRC

Lahore in Enquiry No.598/24 is hereby set aside.

Announced:
27- ob. Zez\
M.Siraj Alrldl CS

L
JUDGE
DB of Mr. Justice Ishtiao Ibrahim Hon'ble the Chief Justice
And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sahibzada Asadullah