FORM No.

HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT
LAHORE.
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Office Objection Diary No.245164 of 2018
Mst Nazia
Vs
State through SHO, etc.

S.No.of order/ Date of order/ Order with signature of Judge, and that of Parties of counsel, where
Proceeding Proceeding necessary.
18.03.2019 Ch. Zulfiqar Ali Vahla, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Rana Tassawar Ali Khan, Additional Advocate
General and Ch. Sarfraz Ahmad Khatana,
Deputy Prosecutor General on court’s call.

Mst. Nazia (petitioner) who is an abductee of case FIR

No.565/2018 registered under section 365-B PPC at police
station Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura, through the instant
writ petition has sought quashing of said FIR on multifarious
grounds, but the office has raised objection on maintainability
of constitutional petition for quashing of FIR, by an
abductee/witness. This is the precise question before us.

2. We have heard the respective arguments of learned

counsel for the parties.

3. Although the jurisdiction of this court under Article 199

of the Constitution in the matters relating to quashing of FIRs,
is almost settled, but leaving that aspect aside, we would
confine ourselves to the legal question (objection) before us.
There can be no difference of opinion that jurisdiction of this
Court is conceived and regulated through Article 199 of the
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and it is sine
qua non for initiation of proceedings under Article 199 of the
Constitution that the petitioner should have a locus standi to
institute the proceedings or in other words the petitioner should
2
Office Objection Diary No.245164 of 2018
Mst Nazia
Vs
State through SHO, etc.

be an aggrieved party from the impugned action. Pivotal

judgment of the apex Court on this issue is “Mian Fazal Din v.
Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore” (PLD 1969 SC 223). In
another case titled “Dr. Imran Khattak and another v. Ms. Sofia
Waqar Khattak, PSO To Chief Justice and others” (2014
SCMR 122) the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held as
follows:
“It would exercise such jurisdiction under Article
199(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (c) on the application of an
aggrieved person while under 199(1)(b)(i) & (ii) on
the application of any person whether aggrieved or
not, and not on an information or on its own
knowledge. In the case of "Tariq Transport Company,
Lahore v. Sargodha Bhera Bus Service and others"
(PLD 1958 SC (Pak) 437), this Court held that a High
Court was not competent merely on an information or
on its own knowledge to commence certiorari
proceedings or other proceedings of a similar nature
under Article 170 of the Constitution of Islamic
Republic of Pakistan, 1956. In the case of "Fazl-e-
Haq, Accountant General, West Pakistan v. The State"
(PLD 1960 SC (Pak) 295), this Court reiterated the
view by holding that the extraordinary jurisdiction
relating to a writ could only be exercised by the High
Court when moved by a party whose legal rights have
been denied”

Moreover, in “Hafiz Hamadullah v. Saifullah Khan and

others” (PLD 2007 SC 52) the apex Court held as follows:
“With regard to the first objection it may be noted that
under Article 199(1)(a) of the Constitutional
jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked by an
aggrieved person which denotes a person who has
suffered a legal grievance, against whom a decision
has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived
him or wrongfully refused him something which he
was legally entitled to. It is also the requirement that
the person invoking the constitutional jurisdiction
under Article 199 of the Constitution has to establish
that any of his legal or fundamental right guaranteed
under the Constitution has been violated resulting in
legal loss”
On the above touchstone, the learned counsel were specifically
asked as to how the petitioner is aggrieved of registration of an
3
Office Objection Diary No.245164 of 2018
Mst Nazia
Vs
State through SHO, etc.

FIR, wherein, she is alleged to be an abductee or may also be

called as prosecution’s star witness but surely not an accused of
the occurrence reported therein, but the learned counsel have
not been able to come out with any answer. We are however
convinced that petitioner (abductee) or any witness of the FIR,
cannot be termed as “aggrieved party” as by no stretch of
imagination it can be said that any of their fundamental right is
infringed by registration of FIR; they have suffered any loss;
they have been wrongfully deprived or refused something
which they were legally entitled to, or any restriction has been
imposed upon them. Consequently, we hold that
abductee/witness do not fall within the definition of “aggrieved
party” to maintain a writ petition to seek quashing of FIR. The
office objection, therefore, is upheld.

(Muhammad Qasim Khan)

Judge.

(Ch. Abdul Aziz) (Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi)

Judge. Judge.

Approved for reporting.

Javed*