Criminal Prosecution and Defense
Police and private complaint and private prosecution
Property superdari
Bail & Anticipatory Bail Applications,
Financial & Corporate Fraud Cases,
Cybercrime & Digital Cases
Defamation & Media Law Cases
The Sindh High Court has reaffirmed that a second FIR for the same incident cannot be registered under Pakistani law. Learn the legal reasoning, Supreme Court precedent, and practical implications for both complainants and accused persons.
Second FIR in Pakistan: What the Court Just Clarified and Why It Matters
Here’s the thing.
Criminal law isn’t just about what happened it’s about how the system is supposed to respond when it does. And in Pakistan, one of the most commonly abused procedural tricks has been the filing of multiple FIRs for the same incident to harass, pressure, or tilt a case.
On 8 September 2025, in C.P. No. D-1382 and 1388 of 2025, the Sindh High Court (Sukkur Bench) put its foot down again: Second FIR for the same occurrence is not legally warranted.
Let’s break it down — clearly, practically, and with the legal weight it deserves.
The Core Issue: Why Second FIRs Are a Legal Minefield
At the heart of this case was a simple but crucial question:
> Can a person demand registration of a second FIR if they have a different version of the same incident?
The respondent wanted his version to be incorporated as a new FIR, even though an FIR had already been registered about the same incident and a challan had been submitted to the trial court.
The Ex-Officio Justice of Peace initially entertained this idea but the High Court shut it down, declaring the proceedings without jurisdiction.
What the Court Said and Why It’s Important
The Court leaned on binding precedent from the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, especially the famous Sughran Bibi case. Here are the key takeaways from the judgment:
1. Mere nomination in an FIR doesn’t justify arrest.
The Court reiterated that no one should be arrested straightaway simply because they’re nominated in an FIR. The investigating officer must first be satisfied with sufficient justification for the arrest, guided by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and Police Rules, 1934.
2. Multiple versions can be recorded but only one FIR.
If someone has a different story to tell, it can be recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, but that does not justify registration of a second FIR.
3. Article 189 of the Constitution is clear:
“Any decision of the Supreme Court shall… be binding on all other courts in Pakistan.”
This means lower courts and justices of peace must strictly follow the Sughran Bibi principle.
Precedent Runs Deep: A Long Line of Judgments
This isn’t a new fight. The Court revisited a long list of cases stretching from 1975 to 2025 to reinforce the principle:
Sughran Bibi case (PLD 2018 SC 595): Second FIR for the same occurrence is not permissible.
Mirza v. SHO (1982 PCr.LJ 171) and many others through the 80s and 90s.
Independent Media Corporation v. Prosecutor General, Quetta (PLD 2015 Balochistan 54).
Pervaiz Rasheed v. Ex-Officio Justice of Peace (2016 YLR 1441).
Imtiaz Ali v. Province of Sindh (2017 MLD 132).
Recent High Court decisions in 2024 and 2025 followed this same principle.
Each of these judgments built a consistent legal wall against registering multiple FIRs for the same event.
Why the Respondent’s Plea Failed
The Respondent No. 5 admitted that FIRs regarding the same incident were already registered. Yet he sought direction for a fresh FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C.
This raised two problems:
First: It directly conflicted with Section 154 and Police Rule 24.7, which do not allow multiple FIRs for the same occurrence.
Second: It ignored the Supreme Court’s clear directive in Sughran Bibi’s case making the prayer legally untenable.
The High Court noted that if the respondent wanted his version on record, the proper legal route was to approach the investigating officer and have it recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C not demand a second FIR.
Malice in Law and Malice in Fact A Critical Observation
The Court went further than just procedure. It called out the malicious intent behind the application.
The respondent’s close relatives were already facing serious criminal charges including murder, arson, and robbery.
The Court concluded that the move for a second FIR was “actuated with an ulterior purpose to harm another or benefit oneself.”
This is a big deal. Because proving malice in fact is not easy it requires a high standard of proof. But here, the Court found enough on record to see through the tactic.
Misuse of Section 22-A(6)(i) Cr.P.C A Broader Pattern
The Court also took note of a growing abuse of Section 22-A(6)(i) Cr.P.C, where offenders file frivolous applications before Ex-Officio Justices of Peace to weaponize the legal process.
This results in:
Unnecessary mental agony to actual victims.
Multiplication of proceedings.
Undue pressure on accused persons.
The Court reminded everyone: before rushing to court, proper recourse within the police hierarchy must be exhausted.
Final Ruling: A Clear, No-Nonsense Verdict
After a thorough review, the Court held:
> “The proceedings initiated by Learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace were without jurisdiction. The petition is allowed. The application seeking registration of second FIR is dismissed.”
The Court also clarified that the respondent was free to record his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C with the investigating officer which is the legally correct way to bring a different version of events on record.
Why This Judgment Matters
This isn’t just another technical ruling. This judgment protects the integrity of the criminal justice system in several ways:
It prevents abuse of criminal process through multiple FIRs.
It protects accused persons from harassment through parallel proceedings.
It streamlines investigations by ensuring there’s one coherent investigative record.
It strengthens the authority of Supreme Court precedent under Article 189 of the Constitution.
For lawyers, investigators, and anyone facing criminal proceedings in Pakistan, this case serves as a practical legal shield against procedural misuse.
Practical Insights for Litigants and Lawyers
1. Second FIRs are almost never allowed.
If your version differs, it must be recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C not as a fresh FIR.
2. Don’t confuse different incidents with different versions.
If two genuinely separate incidents occur, separate FIRs may be justified. But multiple FIRs for the same event? Legally barred.
3. Malicious prosecution can backfire.
Using FIRs as a weapon can lead to dismissal and even legal consequences.
4. Article 189 is not optional.
Lower courts and police must comply with Supreme Court precedent. Period.
FAQs: Second FIR in Pakistan — Answered Clearly
Q1: Can I register a second FIR if I disagree with the first one?
No. You cannot register a second FIR for the same incident. You may record your version with the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Q2: What if the police refuse to record my statement?
You can approach senior police officers or file an appropriate legal application to ensure your statement is recorded but not demand a new FIR.
Q3: Is there any situation where a second FIR is allowed?
Only if it’s a completely separate incident. Not a counter or new version of the same one.
Q4: What happens if someone files a second FIR anyway?
The court can declare it without lawful authority and dismiss the proceedings, just like in this case.
Q5: Can malicious filing of FIRs lead to consequences?
Yes. If malice in fact or law is proven, it can lead to dismissal of applications, contempt, or other legal consequences.
Final Thoughts
The C.P. No. D-1382 & 1388 of 2025 judgment is a firm reminder:
The criminal process is meant to serve justice not personal vendettas.
The Court not only protected the accused from double jeopardy through multiple FIRs but also reinforced a clear procedural boundary for all stakeholders complainants, police, and courts alike.
If you’re a litigant or lawyer dealing with an FIR dispute, remember this:
> One incident. One FIR. Multiple versions? Record them legally not through procedural shortcuts.
Reference:
C.P. No. D-1382 & 1388 of 2025, Sindh High Court (Sukkur Bench), 8 September 2025.
Sughran Bibi case (PLD 2018 SC 595).
Article 189, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
Section 154, 161, 173, and 22-A Cr.P.C
Discover how the Supreme Court of Pakistan interpreted the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 in a unique father–children dispute in DHA Karachi. Learn how this decision impacts property owners, tenants, and families under Pakistan’s eviction laws.
When “home” becomes contested ground
He raised them. He paid for their education. He opened the doors of his home to them.
Years later, they locked him out.
This isn’t a movie script. This is a real case from DHA Karachi that ended up before the highest court of the land — the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
The father, a retired doctor, filed a criminal complaint against his own children under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, claiming they’d unlawfully dispossessed him from his house. What followed was a legal battle that reshaped how Pakistan’s courts interpret “illegal dispossession” in family and eviction disputes.
Let’s break it down clearly — what happened, how the Court ruled, and why it matters for every property owner and tenant in Pakistan.
The Case at a Glance
Case: Abbas Asif Zaman v. The State
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench: Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim
Date of Judgment 26 September 2025
Property: House at 24-B, Sunset Boulevard, DHA Phase II Extension, Karachi
Law Invoked: Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 (Sections 3, 4, 7 & 8)
The complainant — a retired medical doctor — alleged that his daughter and son, from a dissolved marriage, had ousted him from his house. He claimed years of support had been repaid with abuse and dispossession.
He filed a criminal complaint under the Act, and the trial court issued bailable warrants against the children. The High Court upheld that decision. The children appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Legal Question
Can a father file a criminal complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 against his own children living in the family home — when they’ve been residing there with his permission since birth?
Or in simpler terms:
Is this a criminal “illegal dispossession” case, or a civil family dispute?
The Court’s Analysis
1. The Spirit of the Act
The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was enacted to protect lawful owners and occupiers from land grabbers — people who forcibly take over property without legal authority.
The Supreme Court has previously clarified in landmark rulings like:
Niaz Ahmed v. Aijaz Ahmed (PLD 2024 SC 1152)
Mst. Gulshan Bibi v. Muhammad Sadiq (PLD 2016 SC 769)
Shaikh Muhammad Naseem v. Mst. Farida Gul (2016 SCMR 1931)
Mst. Inayatan Khatoon v. Muhammad Ramzan (2012 SCMR 229)
…the Act isn’t limited to qabza groups. Anyone who forcibly intrudes or unlawfully controls another’s property may be prosecuted — but only if the ingredients of the offence are met.
2. The Missing Ingredient: Force
Section 3(3) of the Act is clear:
> “Whoever forcibly and wrongfully dispossesses any owner or occupier of any property… shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine or both…”
The key word is “forcibly.”
Here, the father himself admitted in his appeal:
> “As a result, the complainant and his wife moved out, leaving the respondents in occupation of the property.”
No physical force. No trespass. No intimidation. Just a breakdown in family relations. That’s not enough to trigger a criminal case.
3. Family Bonds vs. Penal Law
The Court highlighted that family life is constitutionally protected in Pakistan:
Article 9: Security of person
Article 14: Dignity and privacy of home
Article 31: Islamic way of life
Article 35: Protection of family
Using a criminal statute designed to combat land mafias inside a family setting would distort the law and risk “over-criminalisation.”
The Verdict — A Landmark Clarification
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the lower courts.
The complaint under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act was dismissed.
The father’s ownership rights were affirmed.
The daughter’s right to reside in the family home, as a woman under domestic law, was also protected.
The Court drew a clear line:
> “The Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was enacted to shield persons in settled possession from land grabbers and violent or lawless ouster, not to furnish a shortcut for private parties in domestic or intra-family disputes.”
Civil Remedies, Not Criminal Shortcuts
The Court was careful to point out that this does not give children immunity if they forcibly evict or harm their parents. If there’s clear evidence of force or intimidation, the Act can apply even against family.
But where possession flows from permissive residence, the appropriate path is:
Civil suits (e.g., for possession, injunction, partition)
Domestic violence protection frameworks (e.g., Sindh Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act, 2013)
Senior citizens’ welfare laws, where applicable
This is a crucial procedural distinction for anyone dealing with tenant eviction or property control disputes in Pakistan.
Protection of Women and Elders in the Home
The Court also linked this case to broader family protection frameworks. Under the Sindh Domestic Violence Act, women and vulnerable persons have the right of residence in the shared household.
It reiterated the Islamic and cultural principle of respect and protection for parents and women. The judgment even quoted:
> “Among you the most respectable is the one who respects women, and the most disrespect is the one who disrespects women.” — Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)
A Comparative Perspective
The Court looked at how other countries address similar issues:
India: Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
Bangladesh: Parents Maintenance Act, 2013
Sri Lanka, Nepal, Singapore, and Canada have similar civil-first mechanisms — not criminal shortcuts.
This reflects a global trend: family conflicts over property are best handled through civil and protective laws, not through criminal charges.
Practical Insights for Property Owners & Tenants
1. Illegal dispossession requires evidence of force.
If someone has been living in a property with permission, their continued residence doesn’t automatically become a criminal offence.
2. Family disputes ≠ land grabbing.
The Supreme Court has drawn a clear boundary between qabza group activity and family-based occupation.
3. Civil courts are the right forum.
If you want to remove someone who has been living permissively, file a civil suit for possession, injunction, or partition — not an IDA complaint.
4. Tenants and residents have rights too.
Especially women and vulnerable dependents have legal protection to reside in shared homes.
5. Domestic violence laws provide residence protection.
In cases involving parents, children, spouses or dependents, protective frameworks apply.
6. Senior citizens should use specific welfare laws where available for maintenance and care claims, not criminal complaints under the Illegal Dispossession Act.
FAQs — Tenant Eviction & Illegal Dispossession in Pakistan
Q1: What is illegal dispossession in Pakistan?
A: Under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005, it refers to forcibly and wrongfully taking over someone’s property without legal authority. Force or wrongful control is a key ingredient.
Q2: Can family members be charged under the Act?
A: Yes — but only if they forcibly evict the owner. If they’re living there permissively, it’s a civil matter, not a criminal one.
Q3: How can a property owner evict a family member legally?
A: Through a civil suit for possession, injunction, or partition. If applicable, domestic violence laws may also apply.
Q4: What if the occupant is a tenant?
A: Tenant eviction must follow due process under tenancy laws or rent controller orders. You cannot use force or bypass legal procedures.
Q5: Can I file a criminal case directly?
A: Only if you have evidence of forcible dispossession. Otherwise, the Court may dismiss it like in this case.
Q6: What are my options if I’m a parent being mistreated by adult children?
A: You can:
File a civil suit for possession,
Approach family/domestic violence protection committees,
Use senior citizens’ welfare laws where applicable.
Final Word — A Balanced Approach
This judgment is a landmark in tenant eviction and property control law in Pakistan. It draws a bright line between criminal land grabbing and family disputes, ensuring:
Owners are protected,
Tenants and dependents are not criminalised unfairly,
Families have room for legal resolution without destroying their bonds.
If you’re a property owner, tenant, or dealing with a family property dispute in Pakistan, this case is a must-read.
Cas
e Reference: Abbas Asif Zaman v. The State, Criminal Petition No. 61-K of 2025, decided on 26-09-2025.
Lessons from a Recent Sindh High Court Decision
Case Discussed: The Director, DG I\&I-IR, Sales Tax House, Karachi v. The State & othersku
Citation: Special Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2022, decided on 13 March 2025
Court: High Court of Sindh, Karachi
Judge: Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
Introduction
Money laundering is one of the most serious financial crimes in modern legal systems. It is not simply about hiding illicit wealth—it is about giving unlawful earnings the appearance of legitimacy, often undermining tax systems, financial institutions, and state governance.
In Pakistan, the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 (“AMLA”) governs the investigation, prosecution, and trial of such offences. But money laundering does not exist in a vacuum—it depends on something called a “predicate offence.” A predicate offence is the underlying crime that generates “proceeds of crime” which are then laundered.
The Sindh High Court’s judgment in DG I\&I-IR v. The State & others (2025) clarifies important aspects of this relationship between predicate offences and money laundering, especially in the context of tax evasion. This article breaks down the case, the arguments, the Court’s reasoning, and its broader implications.
Facts of the Case
The Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation (DG I\&I-IR), Sales Tax House, Karachi, filed a complaint under section 21(2) of the AMLA against Respondent No.3, alleging large-scale money laundering.
According to investigators:
Between 2019 and 2021, the respondent sold foreign currency worth Rs. 813 million to various money changers.
He was not a registered NTN holder, had never filed income tax returns, and held no bank account.
His unexplained financial dealings suggested he was engaged in money laundering.
The complaint also alleged that the respondent had committed predicate offences under sections 192 and 192A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (ITO)—which relate to false statements in verification and concealment of income.
The Special Judge (Customs, Taxation & Anti-Smuggling) Karachi, however, returned the complaint, holding that the acts amounted to violations of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (FERA), not offences triable by the Special Customs Court.
The DG I\&I-IR appealed to the High Court.
Legal Issues
The central questions before the Court were:
1. What constitutes a predicate offence for money laundering under AMLA?
2. Whether the alleged acts of the respondent (unexplained sale of foreign currency, non-filing of tax returns) amounted to predicate offences under the Income Tax Ordinance?
3. Which Court had jurisdiction to try the case—the Special Judge (Customs) or another forum?
Arguments
For the Appellants (DG I\&I-IR):
Since predicate offences under sections 192 and 192A of the ITO are listed in Schedule-I of the AMLA, the Special Judge (Customs) had jurisdiction to try both predicate offences and the money laundering charge (under proviso (a) to section 20 of the AMLA).
Even if the acts also fell under FERA, that did not oust jurisdiction under AMLA when ITO offences were involved.
For the State (Assistant Attorney General):
Supported the appellant’s position that the Special Judge (Customs) had jurisdiction.
For Respondent:
None appeared.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry dismissed the appeal with detailed reasoning. The highlights:
1. Nature of Predicate Offences
AMLA’s definition of “predicate offence” comes from the Palermo Convention, ratified by Pakistan in 2010.
A predicate offence is sine qua non (essential) for the offence of money laundering. Without a predicate offence, money laundering cannot stand.
The Supreme Court had earlier clarified this in Justice Qazi Faez Isa v. The President of Pakistan (PLD 2021 SC 1), noting that laundering only arises after a predicate offence generates “proceeds of crime.”
2. Sections 192 and 192A of ITO
Section 192 applies when a person files a tax return or document with a false statement. Since the respondent never filed any return, section 192 did not apply.
Section 192A applies when a person conceals income in the course of tax proceedings. Again, since no return or proceedings were initiated against the respondent, section 192A was not attracted.
In short, failure to file returns or obtain an NTN might suggest tax evasion, but it did not amount to the specific predicate offences alleged.
3. Jurisdiction under AMLA
Section 20 AMLA ensures that money laundering and predicate offences are tried together.
But here, no prosecution had been initiated under the ITO for predicate offences. No FIR or complaint under section 203B of the ITO had been lodged.
Without predicate offences being set in motion, a standalone money laundering complaint was misconceived.
4. FERA Dimension
At best, the respondent’s conduct fell under FERA (unauthorized foreign currency transactions).
But DG I\&I-IR was not the designated agency to investigate FERA offences.
Judgment
The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding:
No predicate offences under sections 192 or 192A of the ITO were disclosed.
Without predicate offences, there could be no valid complaint of money laundering under AMLA.
The complaint filed by the DG I\&I-IR was misconceived and rightly returned by the Special Judge (Customs).
Key Takeaways
1. Predicate Offence is Essential
You cannot prosecute someone for money laundering unless there is an underlying offence (tax evasion, fraud, narcotics, etc.) that generates the “proceeds of crime.”
2. Failure to File Returns ≠ Predicate Offence
Not registering an NTN or failing to file returns is an offence under tax law, but unless it specifically falls within sections 192 or 192A ITO, it cannot form the basis of an AMLA charge.
3. Jurisdiction Depends on Predicate Offences
If predicate offences fall within the jurisdiction of a Special Court (like Customs), then money laundering can also be tried there. But where no predicate offence is established, AMLA proceedings cannot be sustained.
4. Proper Procedure is Crucial
Prosecution under AMLA cannot bypass the mechanisms of the predicate laws. For example, income tax concealment must first be prosecuted under the ITO before AMLA charges can be sustained.
Broader Implications
This judgment reinforces an important safeguard: AMLA cannot be used as a catch-all tool for unexplained wealth without proving the underlying crime.
For taxpayers, it underscores the importance of compliance—filing returns, maintaining records, and responding to notices—since failures could one day serve as evidence in predicate proceedings.
For investigators and prosecutors, it highlights the need for methodical prosecution: first establish the predicate offence through proper channels, then build a money laundering case on top of it.
For the judiciary, the ruling aligns Pakistan’s AMLA framework with international law by maintaining the link between predicate offences and laundering offences.
Conclusion
The Sindh High Court’s decision in DG I\&I-IR v. The State & others serves as a timely reminder: money laundering laws are powerful but not limitless. They depend on the proper establishment of predicate offences.
Without that foundation, AMLA charges collapse. The judgment ensures that prosecutions remain fair, targeted, and legally sustainable—strengthening both the justice system and Pakistan’s compliance with international anti-money laundering standards.
FAQ 1: What is money laundering under Pakistan’s Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 (AMLA)?
Answer: Money laundering, as defined under Pakistan’s Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 (AMLA), involves the process of making illegally obtained money (proceeds of crime) appear legitimate by passing it through financial systems or other means. This includes concealing the source, ownership, or destination of illicit funds, often to evade taxes, hide criminal activity, or integrate the funds into the legitimate economy. The AMLA provides the legal framework for investigating, prosecuting, and penalizing such activities in Pakistan.
FAQ 2: What is a predicate offence, and why is it important in money laundering cases?
Answer: A predicate offence is the underlying criminal activity that generates the “proceeds of crime” subsequently laundered. Examples include tax evasion, drug trafficking, corruption, or fraud. In the context of the Sindh High Court’s decision in DG I&I-IR v. The State (2025), the court likely emphasized that a money laundering conviction requires proof of a predicate offence, as the proceeds must originate from an illegal act. Without establishing the predicate offence, a money laundering charge cannot stand.
FAQ 3: How does tax evasion relate to money laundering in Pakistan?
Answer ll: Tax evasion can serve as a predicate offence for money laundering when unreported or illegally obtained income is concealed or processed to appear legitimate. In DG I&I-IR v. The State (2025), the Sindh High Court likely clarified that tax evasion, investigated by authorities like the Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation-Inland Revenue (DG I&I-IR), can generate proceeds that, if laundered, trigger liability under the AMLA. This underscores the link between tax-related crimes and money laundering prosecutions.
FAQ 4: What role does the Sindh High Court’s judgment play in understanding money laundering laws?
Answer: The Sindh High Court’s judgment in *DG I&I-IR v. The State (2025) provides critical clarity on the relationship between predicate offences (like tax evasion) and money laundering under the AMLA. It likely highlighted procedural and evidentiary requirements, such as the need to prove the predicate offence before pursuing money laundering charges. This decision serves as a guide for law enforcement, prosecutors, and financial institutions on how to approach such cases in Pakistan’s legal system.
FAQ 5: What are the key takeaways for businesses and individuals to avoid money laundering violations in Pakistan?
Answer: Businesses and individuals must ensure compliance with the AMLA by maintaining transparent financial records, reporting suspicious transactions, and cooperating with regulatory authorities like the Financial Monitoring Unit (FMU). The DG I&I-IR v. The State case emphasizes the importance of avoiding predicate offences, such as tax evasion, which can lead to money laundering charges. Proper documentation, adherence to tax laws, and vigilance in financial dealings are essential to avoid legal consequences under Pakistan’s anti-money laundering framework.