Summary: (a) Anti-Money Laundering Act (VII of 2010)---- ----Ss. 3, 4, 8, 20, 21, 22 & 23---Attachment of property---Alleged tax fraud/evasion as predicate offence---Requirement of prior tax proceedings/adjudication---FIR was registered alleging that petitioners had evaded Sales Tax and Income Tax amounting to Rs.598.447 million during Tax Years 2022 to 2024, and on same basis properties, vehicles and bank accounts of petitioners were attached under S.8 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010---Supreme Court held that neither any proceedings under Sales Tax Act, 1990 or Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 were pending against petitioners, nor any show-cause notice had been issued, nor any tax liability had been determined through assessment/adjudication---Initiation of criminal proceedings and attachment of properties on allegation of tax evasion, without prior determination of tax liability and without opportunity of hearing, was violative of Art.10A of Constitution and principles of natural justice. Cited Case: • Directorate of Intelligence & Investigation-FBR through Director and others v. Taj International (Pvt.) Ltd. and others PLD 2025 SC 633 (b) Tax law---- ----Tax fraud/evasion---Criminal proceedings before assessment/adjudication---Not permissible---Supreme Court reiterated that tax liability is ordinarily civil in nature and must first be determined through process of assessment or adjudication under relevant taxing statute---Before coercive or penal provisions are invoked, liability must be crystallized through lawful process---Registration of FIR, initiation of criminal proceedings and coercive measures on allegation of tax fraud/evasion without lawful determination of tax due amounts to pre-empting assessment and is without jurisdiction and lawful authority. (c) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 10A---Right to fair trial and due process---Ex parte attachment of properties and bank accounts---No opportunity of hearing---Petitioners’ immovable properties, vehicles and bank accounts were attached under S.8 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 without prior notice or hearing---Supreme Court held that such action, particularly where no tax liability had yet been adjudicated, violated constitutional guarantee of due process and principles of natural justice---Attachment of all business assets and accounts brought petitioners’ entire business activity to a halt and could not be sustained without lawful justification. (d) Anti-Money Laundering Act (VII of 2010)---- ----S. 8---“Provisional attachment”---Nature and effect---Appealability---Respondents argued that attachment under S.8 was merely provisional and, therefore, appeal before High Court under S.23 was not maintainable---Supreme Court rejected contention and held that words “provisionally attach” relate to duration of attachment, initially not exceeding 180 days and extendable by Court for further period---For affected person whose properties and bank accounts are attached, order is final in its operative effect unless set aside---Since Act provides no other remedy, such order can be challenged through appeal under S.23. (e) Anti-Money Laundering Act (VII of 2010)---- ----S. 23---Appeal to High Court---Final decision or order---Interim/final distinction---Supreme Court held that S.23 permits appeal by any person aggrieved by final decision or order of Court---Legislature used word “final” with “decision” but not with “order”; therefore, for purpose of appeal under S.23, distinction between interim order and final order cannot be imported in respect of “order”---Attachment order under S.8, being an operative order affecting rights and business, was appealable before High Court. (f) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 185(3)---Petition for leave to appeal against interim order---Maintainability in exceptional cases---Respondents objected that petition before Supreme Court was not maintainable because High Court had only passed an interim order issuing notice---Supreme Court held that in exceptional circumstances involving flagrant violation of law, wrongful exercise of jurisdiction or manifest grave injustice, an aggrieved party may invoke Art.185(3) even against an interim order---Unlike Art.185(2), clause (3) uses word “order” and not “final order”, and Supreme Court has discretion to grant leave depending on facts and circumstances. Cited Cases: • Khawaja Adnan Zafar v. Hina Bashir and others 2024 SCMR 1295 • Attiq ur Rehman v. Sh. Tahir Mehmood and others 2023 SCMR 501 • Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Energy (Power Division), Islamabad and others v. Shafiq ul Hassan and others 2020 SCMR 2119 • Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Zaman Khan and others 1997 SCMR 1508 (g) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 561-A---Inherent jurisdiction---Ad-interim relief---Duty to give reasons---Petitioners sought suspension of attachment order before High Court through application under S.561-A, Cr.P.C.---High Court merely issued notice to Special Prosecutor for a date after three weeks and did not pass any order on interim relief or record reasons for withholding it---Supreme Court held that exercise of discretion to grant or withhold ad-interim relief must be justified through cogent reasons to maintain equilibrium between litigant parties---Failure to consider interim relief left petitioners remediless and perpetuated an allegedly illegal attachment. (h) Anti-Money Laundering Act (VII of 2010)---- ----S. 8---Attachment founded solely on tax FIR---No independent AML material---Application for attachment referred only to allegations contained in FIR registered by tax authorities---No material was shown to establish that proceedings under AML Act had been invoked independently of alleged tax evasion---Supreme Court held that attachment of properties and bank accounts, in circumstances where tax liability had not been determined and no opportunity of hearing had been provided, amounted to miscarriage of justice requiring interference. Disposition: Criminal Petition was converted into appeal and allowed along with C.M.A.; operation of attachment order dated 24.12.2025 passed by Special Judge, Customs, Taxation and Anti-Smuggling-I, Karachi, attaching petitioners’ properties, vehicles and bank accounts under S.8 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, was suspended till final decision of Special Criminal Appeal No.01/2026 pending before learned Single Judge of High Court of Sindh at Karachi.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----Ss. 405 & 406---Criminal breach of trust---Ingredients---Property transaction---Mortgage agreement---Mere use of word “Amanat” in FIR---Effect---Complainant alleged that petitioner, being property dealer, showed him a house for mortgage owned by co-accused and, along with co-accused, received Rs.700,000 as advance out of total mortgage amount of Rs.1,200,000, but neither delivered possession nor returned amount---Supreme Court held that amount was paid in connection with a property/mortgage deal and a written agreement of mortgage had also been executed between parties---Dispute, at most, related to specific performance of mortgage agreement or recovery of amount and was of civil nature---Ingredients of S.405, PPC punishable under S.406, PPC were not attracted because neither any trust was created nor was it specified in what manner such trust was to be discharged---Mere mention of word “Amanat” in FIR would not attract S.406, PPC if ingredients of offence were otherwise absent. Cited Cases: • Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmad and 03 others 2000 SCMR 122 • Muhammad Ali and another v. Assistant Commissioner, Narowal and another 1987 SCMR 795 • Shaukat Ali Sagar v. Station House Officer, Police Station Batala Colony, Faisalabad and 5 others 2006 PCrLJ 1900 • Abdul Razzaq v. The State 1977 PCrLJ 52 • Umair Aslam v. Station House Officer and 7 others 2014 PCrLJ 1305 (b) Criminal proceedings---- ----Civil dispute converted into criminal offence---Abuse of process---Property/mortgage agreement---Complainant had paid Rs.700,000 as advance under written mortgage agreement while Rs.500,000 remained outstanding---Parties disputed which side failed to perform its obligations under agreement---Supreme Court held that proper forum for determination of such dispute was civil Court, where it could be decided which party failed to specifically perform his part of agreement---Machinery of criminal law had been mala fidely set into motion to blackmail and pressurize petitioner and co-accused by converting civil dispute into criminal offence---Such criminal proceedings amounted to abuse of process of law. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----S. 406---Contractual liability---Pledged property / commercial transaction / property deal---Criminal breach of trust not made out---Where dispute arises from contractual liability or performance of agreement, criminal proceedings under S.406, PPC are not attracted merely because money or property was delivered under transaction---In analogous cases relating to pledged jewellery, cinema canteen contract, and property sale transaction, FIRs under Ss.406/420, PPC were quashed because disputes were contractual/civil in nature and proper remedy lay before civil Court---Same principle applied to mortgage/property deal between parties in present case. Cited Cases: • Abdul Razzaq v. The State 1977 PCrLJ 52 • Muhammad Ali and another v. Assistant Commissioner, Narowal and another 1987 SCMR 795 • Umair Aslam v. Station House Officer and 7 others 2014 PCrLJ 1305 (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 249-A---Application before Trial Court---Not mandatory where no probability of conviction---Quashment of FIR---State contended that petitioner should first approach Trial Court through application under S.249-A, Cr.P.C.---Supreme Court held that where facts show no probability of conviction, directing accused to first approach Trial Court under S.249-A, Cr.P.C. would itself amount to sheer abuse of process of law and Court---FIR could be quashed in such circumstances without requiring accused to exhaust remedy under S.249-A, Cr.P.C. Cited Case: • Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmad and 03 others 2000 SCMR 122 (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 561-A---Quashment of FIR---Civil nature of dispute---Scope---Where allegations in FIR, even if accepted, disclosed only a civil dispute regarding recovery of amount or specific performance of agreement and no ingredients of criminal breach of trust were made out, continuation of criminal proceedings would be abuse of process---In such circumstances, High Court’s inherent power to quash FIR under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. could be invoked, and Supreme Court could approve/undertake quashment to prevent misuse of criminal process. (f) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 187---Complete justice---Petition seeking pre-arrest bail converted into appeal for quashment of FIR---Petitioner had approached Supreme Court for pre-arrest bail, but upon examination of record Supreme Court found that no criminal offence was made out against accused---There was no bar in converting petition into proceedings for quashment of FIR where continuation of criminal case would be abuse of process---Supreme Court exercised power under Art.187 of Constitution to do complete justice, converted petition into appeal, allowed same and quashed FIR. Cited Case: • The State through D.G., ANF Rawalpindi v. Muhammad Saleem Khan 2011 SCMR 863 (g) Criminal law---- ----Property dealer---Role of intermediary---Criminal liability under S.406, PPC---Petitioner was property dealer who introduced complainant to owner of house for mortgage transaction---There was no allegation that co-accused was not owner of house or that transaction was fake from inception---Written mortgage agreement existed between parties---Dispute regarding non-delivery of possession/non-return of advance was to be resolved through civil remedies and did not constitute criminal breach of trust against petitioner merely because he participated in property deal. Disposition: Criminal Petition No.10-L of 2026 was converted into appeal and allowed; order dated 06.01.2026 passed by Lahore High Court and order dated 09.12.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore were set aside; FIR No.3299 dated 17.10.2025 registered under S.406, PPC at Police Station Islampura, District Lahore was quashed.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898—Sections 154, 22-A & 561-A—Registration of FIR—Duty of police—Upon receipt of information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, the Station House Officer is under a statutory obligation to reduce the information into writing and register an FIR—Failure to do so constitutes dereliction of statutory duty—Every member of the public may set the criminal law in motion; lodging of FIR not confined to the aggrieved person—Amanullah Khan v. The State (2011 PCr.LJ 774) followed. (b) Ex-Officio Justice of Peace—Refusal to direct registration of FIR on ground of pending civil suit—Held: legally untenable—Civil and criminal liabilities are distinct and may proceed concurrently—Mere pendency of civil proceedings no bar to criminal action—Principle reaffirmed from Zarar Ismail v. Senior Superintendent of Police (2022 SCR 1225). (c) Section 561-A, Cr.P.C.—Scope and object—Inherent jurisdiction of High Court is corrective, plenary, and ex debito justitiae—To be exercised to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process—Technical defects or lack of formal authorization cannot defeat exercise of such powers—Abdul Majeed v. Abdul Samad (2024 SCR 803) relied upon. (d) Power of attorney—Authority to initiate criminal proceedings—Technical defect in authorization cannot nullify exercise of inherent jurisdiction when abuse of process is evident—Procedural formalities must yield to substantive justice. (e) Supreme Court’s constitutional jurisdiction—Article 42-A, AJK Interim Constitution, 1974—Where subordinate courts’ orders are manifestly contrary to binding precedent and perpetuate injustice, Supreme Court may intervene to correct illegality and prevent abuse of process. Disposition: Appeal allowed—Orders of High Court (23.04.2025) and Ex-Officio Justice of Peace (30.08.2023) set aside—Station House Officer directed to register FIR and proceed in accordance with law.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997) ---- S. 9(c) – Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561-A – Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (X of 1984), Art. 122 – Conscious possession – Mere presence – Abetment – Scope. Petitioner Mst. Sumaira Bibi was merely seated on the rear seat of the intercepted vehicle from which substantial quantities of charas were recovered near the footwells of co-petitioners Muhammad Ibrahim (driver) and Gul Muhammad (front passenger). No contraband was recovered from her direct possession or on her pointation, nor was any evidence adduced showing her conscious knowledge or control over the narcotics. For a charge of abetment to succeed, the prosecution must prove that the accused had knowledge of, or actively participated in, the planning or execution of the crime. No such evidence — direct or circumstantial — existed in this case. The Court held that “possession” under law requires not mere proximity but conscious and volitional control. In absence of proof of conscious possession or knowledge, mere presence in a vehicle carrying narcotics is insufficient to sustain conviction. Suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof. Therefore, her conviction was set aside and she was acquitted of all charges. Cited Principle: Burden of proof under Art.122, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 arises only after the prosecution establishes a prima facie case — which was not done here. (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997) ---- S. 9(c) – Possession and recovery – Safe custody – Police witnesses – Evidentiary value. Prosecution successfully proved recovery of narcotics from Muhammad Ibrahim and Gul Muhammad. From Ibrahim’s footwell, 11 packets of charas (13.2 kg total) were recovered, and from Gul Muhammad’s footwell, 10 packets (12 kg total). Recovery was supported by consistent testimony of police witnesses (PW-2 Lady Constable Shazia Bashir and PW-3 HC Umer Daraz), safe custody of samples, and a positive PFSA report confirming the seized substance. The chain of custody from seizure to laboratory analysis was shown to be intact. Defence failed to establish mala fide, enmity, or bias on part of police officials; hence, their testimony could not be discarded merely due to their official status. (c) Criminal jurisprudence – Concurrent findings – Appraisal of evidence – Scope of interference by Supreme Court. Both the trial court and High Court had concurrently held that recoveries from Muhammad Ibrahim and Gul Muhammad were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court found no legal or factual infirmity warranting interference, observing that their convictions and sentences were supported by cogent, unimpeachable evidence. Disposition: Jail Petition dismissed to the extent of Muhammad Ibrahim and Gul Muhammad; convictions and life sentences under S.9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, maintained. Jail Petition converted into appeal and allowed to the extent of Mst. Sumaira Bibi; conviction and sentence set aside; she was acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 498 & 561-A---Pre-arrest bail---Dismissal---Duty of investigating agency---Effect of pendency of petition before Supreme Court---Petitioners’ application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed by the High Court, yet they remained at large for over six months without any effective effort by the police to arrest them---Held, such inaction by the investigating authorities was a matter of serious concern and undermined the rule of law---Filing of a petition before the Supreme Court does not constitute a legal bar to arrest in the absence of an express injunctive order---Refusal of pre-arrest bail implies a judicial finding that no exceptional circumstances exist to justify protection from arrest, and therefore, arrest becomes lawful and necessary to facilitate investigation---Any contrary practice by police treating such petitions as implied stays is impermissible and defeats the object of pre-arrest bail law---Interim protection from arrest must be specifically sought and granted; it is not automatic---Failure to execute arrest post-refusal of bail was held to be non-compliance with binding judicial orders. (b) Police Practice and Judicial Enforcement ----Investigation---Obligation of police to enforce judicial orders---Circular issued by Inspector General of Police, Punjab---On direction of Supreme Court, I.G. Punjab appeared and confirmed that pending petitions before superior courts do not bar arrest unless an express stay is granted---Circular was issued instructing all police officers to ensure immediate compliance with bail refusal orders and to reissue the directive biannually---Held, delay in enforcement weakens investigation, erodes judicial authority, and fosters a culture of impunity---Police officers are under a legal duty to arrest accused persons promptly upon dismissal of pre-arrest bail; administrative excuses or pendency of further proceedings do not justify inaction. (c) Disposition ----Petition dismissed as not pressed---Petitioners opted to avail appropriate remedies under the law before the relevant forum. Cited Statutes: • Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 498, 561-A Disposition: Petition dismissed as not pressed.

Summary: (a) Islamic Law – Nikah – Competence of sui juris woman – Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, Ss. 11 & 16 – Cr.P.C., S. 561-A – A Muslim woman of sound mind and full age (sui juris) possesses legal autonomy to contract a valid marriage of her own free will without requiring the consent of a wali (guardian) – Marriage voluntarily contracted by an adult woman cannot be criminalized or treated as illicit merely for contravening familial wishes – Registration or family objection does not affect validity of Nikah under Islamic or statutory law – Followed Hafiz Abdul Waheed v. Mrs. Asma Jehangir & another (PLD 2004 SC 219). (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 – S. 561-A – Quashment of FIR – Abuse of process – FIR lodged under Ss. 11/16 Zina Ordinance against legally married couple – High Court quashed FIR on finding marriage valid and voluntary – Held, once existence of lawful Nikah is established, presumption of zina is fully negated and continuation of proceedings constitutes abuse of process – Courts are empowered to exercise inherent jurisdiction to prevent misuse of criminal law for personal or familial vengeance. (c) Islamic Jurisprudence – Proof of Zina – Standard of evidence – Under Quranic injunctions and Hudood framework, offence of zina requires testimony of four eyewitnesses to the actual act; conviction cannot rest on suspicion, conjecture, or familial disapproval – False accusation of zina is itself a punishable offence under Qur’an (Surah Al-Noor 24:4). (d) Constitutional Law – Fundamental rights – Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, Art. 3-G – Protection of dignity, privacy, and liberty – Husband and wife, being lawfully wedded, entitled to full protection of constitutional guarantees against harassment or false prosecution. (e) Administration of justice – Judicial duty – Scope of interference at investigation stage – Exceptional circumstances exist where prosecution is manifestly mala fide or devoid of legal foundation – Quashment justified to prevent miscarriage of justice and uphold sanctity of lawful marriage. Disposition: –– Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. –– High Court’s judgment quashing FIR No. 30/2025 under Ss. 11/16 Zina Ordinance upheld as lawful and justified.

Summary: Acquittal ---- (a) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961----S. 6(5)(b)---Second marriage without prior permission---Jurisdiction of court---Corum non-judice---Petitioner contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of first marriage without seeking permission from the Arbitration Council or the first wife as required under S.6(5)(b) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961---Complaint was filed by the first wife nearly 3½ years after the second marriage and post-divorce---Learned Magistrate Section 30 tried and convicted the petitioner---Held, proceedings before Magistrate Sec-30 were corum non-judice as the court had not been conferred powers of a Family Court, which alone has jurisdiction to take cognizance and try offences under the Ordinance---Head-note of the original judgment revealed no designation or authority of the learned Magistrate as a Judge Family Court---Since trial was conducted by a court lacking lawful jurisdiction, entire proceedings were void ab initio and stood vitiated---Complaint was also held to be mala fide in light of delayed filing and family participation in second marriage.(b) Family Courts Act, 1964 (as amended by Punjab Amendment Act XI of 2015)----S. 5 & S. 20(3)---Exclusive jurisdiction of Family Court---Offences under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance---Cognizance of complaint---Complaint to be made by aggrieved party or Arbitration Council before Family Court---Only Family Courts designated under law have jurisdiction to try such matters as Judicial Magistrates of First Class---Amendments confer exclusive authority to Family Courts to entertain, adjudicate, and try such criminal matters---Since no proof existed that the trial Magistrate had been notified as a Family Court Judge, the assumption of jurisdiction was illegal---Established principle that when law prescribes a mode, it must be followed, and no alternative method is acceptable.(c) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973----Art. 175(2)---Jurisdiction of courts---Bar on exercise of jurisdiction without lawful conferment---No court shall exercise jurisdiction unless conferred by the Constitution or law---Any judicial proceedings conducted without lawful authority are null and void---In the present case, the court conducting the trial lacked jurisdiction under both statutory law and the Constitution.(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 561-A---Quashing of proceedings---Where trial was initiated by a court lacking jurisdiction, entire proceedings including judgments of appellate court stand vitiated---Jurisdictional defect goes to the root of the matter and renders trial a nullity in law.Cited Cases:• Muzaffar Nawaz v. Ishrat Rasool and others 2022 YLR 1920• PLD 2010 SC 585• PLD 1985 SC 62Disposition:Petition allowed---Judgments of both the trial court and appellate court set aside---Petitioner acquitted of charge---Bail bond discharged.

Summary: -----Quote: Quashing of FIR u/s 561-A Cr.P.C: When the basic/ initial order, on the basis of which, the criminal case bearing FIR No. 99 dated 22.05.2014 was registered against the petitioners is no more in field then the entire superstructure shall fall on ground in view of the dicta laid down by the apex Court in the cases of “Vice Chancellor Agriculture University Vs. Muhammad Shafiq” (2024 SCMR 527), “Pakistan People Party Parliamentarians Vs. Federation of Pakistan” (PLD 2022 SC 574), “Atta-ur-Rahman Vs. Umar Farooq” (PLD 2008 SC 663) and “Superintendent of Police Headquarters Lahore and others Vs. Ijaz Aslam and others” (2024 SCMR 1831). Registration of FIR u/s 188 PPC: The initiation of the proceedings u/s 188 PPC under Scheule-II of Cr.P.C pertaining to the ‘disobedience to an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant, if such disobedience causes obstruction, annoyance or injury to person lawfully employed. If such disobedience causes danger to human life, health or safety etc.,” has been shown in column No.3 as non-cognizable offence and the accused thereof shall not be arrested without warrant. When an offence is non-cognizable then no FIR could be lodged in terms of section 195 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. The Court shall not take cognizance of the prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 PPC, except on the complaint in writing of public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. In the instant matter, irrespective of passing of an order of attachment of property, which though was later on set aside by the learned revisional court, could not provide any justification to respondent No.2 (AAC, Sheringal) or any other public servant to get register an FIR and that too u/s 188 P.P.C, which in Schedule- II of Cr.P.C has been categorized as a non-cognizable offence. In non-cognizable offences no FIR could be lodged except as ordained in section 155 of Cr.PC. Reliance is placed on the cases of “Bux Ali And 2 Others versus The State and Another” (1980 PCr.LJ 626). “Sabz Ali Khan and 2 others Versus Inspector General of Police, KPK and 3 others” (2016 YLR 1279), “Shahid Khan and 3 others Versus the State through Station House Officer (SHO) and 2 others” (2017 YLR 2419), “Muneer Ahmed Abbasi and 5 others Versus Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace Bagh, District Bagh and 5 others” (2018 MLD 196), and “Aslam Pervaiz and another Versus Tameer Ali and 7 others” (2019 YLR 228).

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 15, 20 & 199 Fundamental rights—Freedom of movement and religion—Petitioners argued that offloading passengers from an international flight and registering FIR No. 215/2024 violated their constitutional rights under Arts. 15 and 20 of the Constitution. Held, that fundamental rights are not absolute and may be lawfully restricted under specific circumstances, such as national security, public safety, or public interest. Restrictions on international travel are permissible to ensure compliance with immigration laws and international obligations, provided they are proportionate and non-discriminatory. (b) Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act, 2018 (PTPA) ----Ss. 3, 4, & 5---Trafficking in persons—Elements of coercion, fraud, or exploitation—Case involved allegations of sending individuals abroad under the guise of Umrah visas for organized begging. Held, that allegations, including financial exploitation and control over victims, prima facie satisfied the elements of trafficking under Ss. 3 and 4 of the PTPA. However, determination of whether trafficking occurred required further investigation and factual determination at trial. (c) Emigration Ordinance, 1979 ----S. 22(b)---Unauthorized emigration and exploitation—Petitioners allegedly charged individuals for fake Umrah visas without hotel bookings or return tickets. Held, that while initial facts did not conclusively justify invoking S. 22(b), the Investigating Officer could incorporate the provision if further evidence emerged during investigation. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 154 & 561-A---Quashing of FIR—Principles—FIR can be quashed only where it unequivocally fails to establish an offence or reflects clear misuse of legal authority. Supreme Court precedents emphasize that quashing an FIR during investigation disrupts the criminal justice process and should only be exercised in extraordinary circumstances. In the present case, the allegations in FIR No. 215/2024 constituted a prima facie case, and there were no grounds for quashing. (e) Vagrancy Laws ----Punjab Vagrancy Ordinance, 1958 & Punjab Destitute and Neglected Children Act, 2004—Organized beggary—Definitions and remedies—While beggary alone does not fall under the PTPA unless it involves coercion or exploitation, it may constitute an offence under the Vagrancy Ordinance or other laws addressing organized begging. Cited Cases: • Pakistan Muslim League (N) v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2007 SC 642) • Bashir Ahmad v. Zafar-ul-Islam (PLD 2004 SC 298) • Ajmeel Khan v. Abdur Rahim (PLD 2009 SC 102) • The State v. Chaudhry Muhammad Khan (2024 SC decision) ------ Disposition: Petition for quashing FIR No. 215/2024 dismissed. Held, that the investigation must proceed, and the trial court shall address the applicability of the PTPA or vagrancy laws based on evidence.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – Section 561-A – Quashment of Criminal Proceedings ---- Scope and Applicability of Section 561-A, Cr.P.C.---Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., are curative in nature and intended to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice---Inherent powers cannot replace alternate remedies provided under Sections 249-A and 265-K, Cr.P.C., but may be invoked in exceptional cases where a clear abuse of process or injustice is apparent---High Court is obligated to examine and decide quashment petitions on merits, particularly when abuse of process is alleged. (b) Abuse of Process – Doctrine and Judicial Interpretation ---- Definition and Judicial Guidelines---The doctrine of abuse of process encompasses unwarranted or irrational use of legal proceedings, including vexatious litigation, harassment, or mala fide intent---Courts must prevent misuse of judicial mechanisms and safeguard the principles of fair play and justice---Summary dismissal of quashment petitions without addressing substantive grounds raised amounts to a failure of judicial duty. (c) Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 – Section 3 & 5 – Investigation and Cognizance ---- Quashment of Proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005---Section 3 prohibits illegal occupation, grabbing, or control of immovable property without lawful authority---Section 5 provides the procedure for investigation and cognizance by the trial court---Cognizance by a trial court does not preclude the High Court from exercising its inherent powers under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., to review the legitimacy and fairness of proceedings initiated under the Act. (d) Quashment Petition – Duty of the High Court ---- Obligation to Examine Merits of Quashment Petitions---High Court must not dismiss quashment petitions summarily without considering the grounds raised, particularly where multiple pending civil suits or ongoing civil disputes are involved---Dismissal solely on the ground that cognizance has been taken by the trial court is insufficient and reflects a failure to exercise judicial discretion properly. ----- Cited Cases: Shahnaz Begum v. Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan (PLD 1971 SC 677) R. v. Power ([1994] 1 S.C.R. 601) R. v. Scott ([1990] 3 S.C.R. 979) Disposition: Criminal Petition converted into an appeal and allowed. The impugned order of the High Court was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the High Court for fresh adjudication on merits after issuing notice to all parties. The High Court is directed to address the grounds raised in the quashment petition comprehensively.