Dilawar Khan & 02 others v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Home Department & 02 others

Judgment Sheet

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT. BANNU BENCH

(Judicial Department)

WPNo.437-812024

Dilawar Khan & 02 others Vs

Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary llome Department & 02 others

JADGMENT

For petitioner(s): M/s Sawal Nazir Khan ASC Shah Khawar ASC and Malik Zeeshan Khan AIIC (via video link)

For respondent(s): M/s Muhammad lnam Khan Yousafzai and Muhammad Asghar Khan Ahmadzai. Additional Advo cates-General. Naiib Ullah Khan. Assistant Advocate-Genera l. alons with Mr. Raza Ullah DSP Anti-Corruption

Date of hearing: 05.05.2026

MUHAMMAD TARI O AFRID I. J.- Through the instant writ petition, filed under Article 199 of the constitution, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:

a "On acceptance of instant writ petition, the august Court may be pleased to;

1 Set-asidc and quash the FIR No' 02 dated: 09.09'2024 lodged in Police Station Anti-Conuption Bannu under Sections 409,419,420, 468, 471of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 7947, and Restrain the respondents permanently from harassing, humiliating and publicly ridiculing the petitioners and their family members through delibcrate campaign and by maliciously prosecuting them in false and bogus cases like the one in hand, and / or 1ll. Grant any othcr remedy deemed appropriate may also be granted in favour of the Petitioner."

2.Briefly, facts of the case, as set forth in the instant writ petition, are that on 19.08.2024, Mr. Abdur Rahim, Circle Offrcer, Anti-Corruption' Bannu' submitted a sorrce report to the Director of Anti-Comrption Establishment,

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through the Assistant Director Crimes, stating therein that Dilawar Khan and Sadiq Dilawar Khan were allegedly selling govemment land by developing a housing scheme under the name "Central Provincial Elite

community Residentia cPEC Colony," thereby causing a loss of millions of an open rupees to the public exchequer, and sought permission for conducting relevant inquiry in order to investigate the matter and obtain statements and record. Permission to conduct the inquiry was accorded and communicated the subject:

vide Letter No . 5s45l\CL,dated Peshawar the 2l'08'2024' bearing

"OPEN ENQUIRY NO.71I2024-REV: AGAINST

DILAWAR KIIAN AND SADIQ

DISTRICT

DILAWAR AND CONCERNED STAFF OF Rf,VENUE DEPARTMENT BANNU,,withdirectionstofinalizethesamepositivelywithinonemonth.

The Circle Officer, Anti-Comrption, Bannu' upon conclusion of the

enquiry, found that 39-Kanal of land bearing old Khasra Nos' 2593 arrd 2594' situated in Mouza Bharat' corresponding to new Khasra Nos' 5824 and 5827 comprising a water channel (Khwar)' allegedly belonging to the ? Bannu, Provincial Govemment' had been illegally occupied and unlawfully consequently' he incorporated into and made part of the aforesaid society' submitted his report recommending registration of a criminal case against Taj son of Ghulam Mali Khan, the then Sub-Registrar, Bannu' Dilawar Khan Muhammad, and Humayun Dilawar and Sadiq Dilawar' sons of Dilawar Khan'

residents of Kafshi Khel, Bannu'

09'09'2024' under

4.Accordingly, a criminal case vide FIR No'2' dated Penal Code' 1860' read Sections 4Og, 4lg, 420, 468, and 471of the Pakistan Act' 7947 ' was registered at with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Police Station Anti-Comlption' Bannu' Thereafter' the leamed Judicial by the Circle Officer' Anti- Magistrate-Il, Bannu, upon an application moved arrest of the present petitioners' Com.rption, Bannu, issued warrants for the the arrest and production of directing that the same shall remain in force until the petitioners before the Court'

aforesaid criminal case' the

5.Feeling aggrieved by the registration of the remedy available under petitioners, having no other adequate and efficacious

the law, have approached this Court through the instant constitutional petition, seeking quashment of the FIR in question.

6.Arguments were heard and the record was perused with the valuable assistance of the leamed counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional

Advocates-General, and the learned Assistant Advocate-General for the State.

7 . Leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that Petitioner No' l , namelyDilawarKhan,expiredanaturaldeathduringthependencyofthe Advocates-General, instant writ petition on 19.01.2026. The leamed Additional DSP, also confirmed the leamed Assistant Advocate-General, and Raza Ullah, thedeathofDilawarKhan.Consequently,boththecriminalproceedingsas wellastheproceedingsbeforethisCourt,insofarastheyrelatetoPetitioner No.l, stand abated.

? 8. Leamed counsel further submitted that Petitioner No'2' namely

presently holding the post of Humayun Dilawar' is a serving Judicial Officer' District&SessionsJudge(BPS-21)inthelslamabadDistrictJudiciaryarrdis working under the administrative control and supervision of the Honourable

IslamabadHighCourt.HefurthersubmittedthatPetitionerNo'3'namelySadiq (BPS-17) in the Provincial Dilawar, is serving as Senior Investigation Officer Peshawar' Ombudsman Secretariat, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa' Khan' was g. It was argued that Petitioner No'1, namely deceased Dilawar situated in Mouza Bharat' Tehsil owner in possession of certain landed properry Kakki,DistrictBannu,whichwassubsequentlytransferredbyhiminfavourof (CPEC)' an approved housing Cenhal Provincial Elite Community Residentia registered sale deeds' It was further scheme, through various mutations and

contended that, out of the said transactions' the transfers effected vide Bahi No'1' Jild No'163 dated Registered Deed/lVasiqa Nos'l179 and 1180' Anti-Corruption Establishment l6.O5.2[22,were subsequently disputed by the (ACE), Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, allegedly at the behest of the Provincial to Govemment, acfuated by mala fide intent and ulterior motives, purportedly of the former Chairman ofPTI in seek vengeance on account of the conviction recorded by Petitioner No'2 in his a criminal case, which conviction had been

capacity as Additional Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer ofthe trial court upon conclusion of the proceedings.

10.Leamed counsel for the Petitioners contended that the impugned FIR is the outcome of mala fide, arbitrariness, and a deliberate abuse of the process of law, originating from a self-generated and fabricated Source Report dated 1g.08.2024, on the basis whereof, Open Enquiry No' 7112024 was initiated' It as the was argued that the enqulry proceedings were merely cosmetic in nature' entire record reflects only a single progress report dated 30.08.2024, while neither any witness nor the Petitioners were examined during the course of the

enquiry.LeamedcounselfurthersubmittedthatRegisteredDeedsNos.llT9 to date, and 1180, both dated 15.06.2022, remain valid, intact, and operative andthattheownershipandpossessionofPetitionerNo.l(nowdeceased)over person or authority' V the property in question have never been disputed by any includingtheGovemment.Despitethis,thesaidregistereddeedsweremade Anti-Com'rption the sole basis for the registration of the impugned FIR by the Establishment (ACE)' It was further argued that' in highly suspicious

circumstances, the so-called final report, legal opinion, approval by the

DirectorACE,andregishationoftheimpugnedFlRwereallprocessedand finalized in undue haste on the same day, i'e', 09'09'2024'

11.Learned counsel vehemently argued that the Director, ACE, vide letter Commissioner' Bannu' who dated29.10.2025, referred the matter to the Deputy revenue and thereafter constituted an eight-member committee comprising Upon thorough executive officers/offrcials to conduct a detailed inquiry' and demarcation examination of the revenue record, registration documents, Deeds Nos' 1179 and proceedings, the Committee concluded that Registered ll80,executedpursuanttodecreedated30.03.lgS0,alongwithconsequential and fully justified' Mutation Nos. 18232 and 19329' were lawful' valid' of

12.Leamed counsel further submitted that approval/Nocs in favour Bannu' as CPEC Residentia were granted by the Deputy Commissioner' ChairmanoftheDistrictScrutinyCommitteecomprisingseniorofficersofall relevant departments, as well as by TMA Kakki' Bannu, after inviting public

through newspapers and social media in 2023 ' It was further objections

contended that additional clearances were also issued by the concerned Highway, Agriculture, Canal and EPA authorities. Leamed counsel emphasized that none of the said authorities has ever objected to, withdrawn, or cancelled

theNoCssogranted.ItwasfurtherarguedthattheDeputyCommissioner, officer, Bannu, in his capacity as District collector and Dishict Regishation hasexpresslyvalidatedandendorsedtheregistereddeedsinquestion,whilethe registered deeds and consequential mutations continue to remain valid and operative till date.

13.Leamedcounselfurthersubmittedthattheveryfoundationoftheinquiry andtheconsequentregistrationoftheFlRislegallyuntenable,beinginclear Anti- violation of the relevant provisions of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa t/ Comrption Establishment Rules, 1999' According to the leamed counsel' RespondentNo.2,whileservingasanAdditionalsessionsJudge'Islamabad' targeted, and the respondents' acting in haste' with mala fide was deliberately legal requirements and intent, and in complete disregard of the applicable of the FIR against petitioner goveming rules, unlawfully caused the registration No. 2, as well as his father and brother' on the basis of an illegal and unauthorized inquiry.

counsel contended that

14.While concluding their arguments, the leamed the impugned FIR, being founded uPon a fabricated source report' a proceedings' constitutes a clear subsequently manipulated inquiry, and illegal liable to be quashed' abuse of the process oflaw and is, therefore'

15.Conversely, Ieamed Additional Advocate-General' Mr' Muhammad Inam Yousafzai, submitted that the impugned FIR was the outcome of a conducted in accordance with verified source report and a preliminary inqulry Establishment Rules' 1999' during the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Anti-Comrption cognizable offences relating which, documentary record prima facie disclosed of revenue record and to fraudulent transfer of land through manipulation misuseofajudicialdecree.Hefurthercontendedthatdespitebeingduly from joining the inquiry and' summoned, the Petitioners willfully abstained allege denial of due process at this stage' It was vehemently therefore, cannot contendedthattheinstantpetitionhasbeeninstitutedsolelytoobstructalawful

criminal investigation, despite the settled principle of law that constitutional jurisdiction ought not to be invoked to stifle criminal proceedings at a nascent stage where the FIR discloses cognizable offences'

16.The learned Additional Advocate-General, while elaborating upon the aforesaid submissions, advanced the following contentions:

a) That during the inquiry, revenue record obtained from the concemed departmentsrevealedthatdeceasedDilawarKhanhadinstifutedaCivil suittitted..DilawarKhan-V-GhulamHussainandanother,'No.36211 2604' arrd instituted on 02.09.1976' in respect of Khasra Nos' 2603' judgment and decree 2605. The leamed Senior Civil Judge, Bannu, vide dated 30.03.1980, granted permanent injunction against dispossession

fromthesaidKhasranumbers.However,thesaiddecreewas different Khasra Nos' subsequently misused to claim ownership over formed part of the 5824 and 5827 measuring 39-Kanal' which neither jointly owned suit nor were covered by ihe dec.ee, and were admittedly by Mahazi Malikan.

e b) That Mutation No' 5140 dated 24'01'2023 was attested in Mahazi Malikan,MouzaBharat,infavourofDilawarKhan(PetitionerNo'1)on the basis of Registry/WasiqaNo' 1179' Bahi No' 1' Jild No' 613' dated 15.06.2022, which is ex facie defective' as it does not disclose the numbers of the alienated requisite particulars of the Khata and Khasra further contended that' property. Leamed Additional Advocate-General on it. ,t .ngtt of the said Registry/Wasiqa No' I 179 dated 15'06'2022' Mutation No' 5141 Dilawar Khan subsequently transferred' through comprised in Khasra Nos' dated 24.01.2023, larrd measuring 39 Kanals 5824 and 5827 situated in Mouza Bharat' Bannu' in favour of Central (CPEC), which mutation was Provincial Elite community Residentia attested on the basis of the subsequent Registry/wasiqa No' 1 180 dated 15.06.2022, despite the admitted position that the aforesaid Khasra numberswerenevffthesubjectmatterofthelitigationinquestion.

of the judicial decree c) That such deliberate misapplication and misuse process and' on its face' gives rise constitutes a serious abuse ofthe legal of the Pakistan Penal to penal liability under the applicable provisions Code and the Prevention of Comrption Act'

Deputy Commissioner' d) That the Petitioners' reliance on the report of the report pertains to Khasra Bannu, is misconceived and irrelevant' as the FIR specifically concems Nos. 5813, 5818,5820, and 5823, whereas the

Khasra Nos. 5824 and 5827. The report is, therefore, factually distinguishable and legally inapplicable to the present contoversy. Moreover, it merely reflects an administrative opinion and neither establishes lawful ownership nor explains the Petitioners' chain of title over the disputed land. consequently, the report neither validates the impugned transactions nor absolves the Petitioners of criminal liability.

e) That the subject property forms part of Shamilat-e-Deh (communal land) and, under Section 6 of the Transfer of Properry Act' 1882 read with

Sections 125, 126 and 127 of the Land Revenue Act' 1967 is non- individuals' transferable and incapable of alienation in favour of private Any transaction or mutation effected in violation thereof is void ab

initio, without lawful authority, and non est in the eye of law' 0 ThatthecontentionthatPetitionerNo.lhasexpiredandPetitionersNo.2 for the & 3, being merely wibresses to the deeds' cannot be held liable Petitioners No.2 alleged ofi.n"., is legally misconceived and untenable. legal heirs U { *" not only beneficiaries of the transaction but also the arising of Petitioner No.l. Upon his death, any rights and liabilities ? therefrom devolved upon them; therefore, they cannot the hyper-technical plea of being mere witnesses escape liability on to the deeds'

Advocates-

17.While concluding their submissions, the learned Additional prayed that the present Writ General and the Assistant Advocate-General Petition,beingdevoidofmeritandnotmaintainable'bedismissed'andthatthe allowed to proceed shictly in investigation in FIR No.02 dated 09'09'2024 be accordance with law, along with any other relief deemed just and proper in the

facts and circumstances ofthe case'

18.In light of the submissions of both sides' the record was minutely

examined. Before addressing the merits of the case' it is appropriate to frst

consider the petitioners' objection that the FIR was registered in violation of

the provisions of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Anti-Comrption Establishment quashed on this ground alone' Rules, 1999, and is therefore liable to be of the

19.For adjudication of the legal question as to whether the initiation of the impugned FIR offend preliminary inquiry and the consequent registration Anti-Comrption Establishment Rules 3 and 4 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa necessary to examine the allegations Rules, 1999, read with Rule 9 thereof, it is

forming the basis of the inquiry alongside the said provisions to determine their legality in accordance with law.

20.Theoriginalrecordofthecasewasrequisitioned,produced,andretained by the court for scrutiny and adjudication of the matter. The record reveals that, on the basis of a source report dated lg.O8.2L24,permission to conduct an

open inquiry was granted within two days vide Letter No' 5545/ACE dated

21.08.2024. The inquiry was thereafter concluded within 19 da whereupon

the Circle Officer reported that 39-Kanal of land comprised in Khasra Nos' a water channel 5824 and 5827, situated in Mouza Bharat, Bannu, constituting illegally (Khwar) allegedly owned by the Provincial Govemment' had been occupied and incorporated into the housing scheme in question' He case against Taj Mali consequently recommended registration of a criminal ? Khan, the then Sub-Registrar, Bannu, Dilawar Khan son of Ghulam sons of Dilawar Khan' Muhammad, and Humayun Dilawar and Sadiq Dilawar' Dilawar had been notwithstanding that neither Taj Mali Khan nor Humayun FIR No'2 dated 09'09'2024 named in the original source rePort' Consequently' was registered at Police Station Anti-Comrption' Bannu' under Sections 409'

471 PPC, read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of 41g,420,468 and

(04)persons' Comrption Act, 1947,against the aforesaid four

21.Leamed counsel for the petitioners alleged that Imran Khan Niazi was

convicted on 05.08.2023, under Section 174 of the Elections Act' 2017' by

Petitioner No. 2, namely Humalun Dilawar' Additional Sessions Judge'

Islamabad(West),inacomplaintfiledbytheDistrictElectionCommissioner' Act' 2077 ' for making a false Islamabad, under Section 190 of the Elections

declaration regarding assets acquired by way of gifts from Toshakhana' He was three years and a fine of Rs'100'000/- on sentenced to simple imprisonment for the registration of the present FIR 05.08.2023. It was' therefore, argued that grievance arising out of the aforesaid was motivated by, and stemmed from' the judgment of conviction. Leamed counsel further submitted that the said as no argument to the conviction and its circumstances remained unrebutted' contrary was advanced bY the State'

22.In light of the foregoing facts, objections, and Rules 3 and 4 of the KhyberPakhtunkhwaAnti-ComrptionEstablishmentRules,lggg,readwith Rulegthereof,thisCourtconsidersitnecessarytoexaminewhetherthe prescribed legal requirements were duly complied with' or whether any

and the subsequent deviation therefrom occurred, in the initiation of the inquiry regishation of the FIR.

23.Record reflects that a source report dated 19.08.2024 was prepared by AbdulRahim,CircleOfficer,Anti-Corruption'Bannu'Recordalsorevealsthat neitherHuma1unDilawarnorTajMaliKhan'Sub-Registrar'Bannu'was named or referred to in the said source report. lt is further noteworthy that withinaspanofmerelytwo(02)daysfromthepreparationofthesourcereport, theDirectorAnti-ComrptionEstablishment'KhyberPakhtunkhwa'accorded approvalfortheinitiationofaninquiry,andwithinthenextnineteen(19)days, anFlRcametoberegisteredagainstHumayunDilawar(withoutdescribinghis status as an Additional Sessions Judge)' his father and brother' as well as the

Sub-Registrar. The foregoing sequence of events' when examined in

juxtapositionwiththejudgmentofconvictionrenderedagainstlmrarrKhan an unusual degree of Niazi, former Chairman PTI, prima facie' suggests particularly expeditionin the initiation and culmination of the proceedings, foundation of the proceedings' when the source report, which formed the containednoallegations,referenceormaterialagainstHumayunDilawar' was subsequently nominated as an Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, who accused.

24.In the context of these events' the record of the Anti-Comrption

Establishment was examined, from which it became evident that the source of any person' nor was any report was neither submitted on the complaint For this reason' the summons/notices source of information disclosed therein' were also examined so that a issued by the Circle Officer, Anti-Comrption' the faimess or bias' as well as the proper assessment could be made regarding of the case' good faith or mala fide intent, involved in the investigation was issued to

25.The record reveals that a service notice dated 04 'Og '2024 the purpose of recording their Haji Dilawar Khan and Sadiq Dilawar for

statements, requiring their appearance on 05.09'2024, however, no summons or

notice was ever issued to Humayun Dilawar, notwithstanding the fact that the

his allegations against him were identical in nature to those leveled against to the brother sadiq Dilawar. Both brothers were shown as attesting witnesses two registered deeds through which the Shamilati land was transferred of Humayun allegedly by means of fraud. In these circumstances, the omission Dilawar, Additional sessions Judge, Islamabad, from the inquiry proceedings

appearsdeliberateandlendsconsiderablesupporttotheinferencethathis requisite legal formalities, exclusion was intended to avoid compliance with the whichcouldotherwisehaveimpededordelayedtheregistrationoftheFlR.

26.It is noteworthy that the source report did not contain even a passing referencetoHumaytrrrDilawareitherbynameordesignation.However,inthe finalreportdated0g.0g.2024,itwasalleged,onthebasisofthesourcereport' Humayun Dilawar, had that Dilawar Khan and his sons, Sadiq Dilawar and Provincial Elite illegally occupied government land, established a "Central Community Residentia CPEC Colony", thereon' and sold plots' thereby

deriving unlawful financial gains amounting to hundreds of thousands of the Circle Officer' Anti-Comrption rupees. The final report further reveals that Dilawar and Sadiq Dilawar' in Establishment (ACE) concluded that Humayun caused wrongful gains amounting collusion with the Sub-Registrar Bannu, had tomillionsofrupeestothemselvesandtheirfather'Consequently'he case' On the very same day' the recommended the registration of a criminal (ACE) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa accorded Director Anti-Comrption Establishment 09'09'2024' under Sections 409' 419' approval, whereupon, FIR No'2, dated 1860' read with Section 5(2) of 420,468 and 471ofthe Pakistan Penal Code' was registered at Police Station Anti- the Prevention of Comrption Act, 1947 ' ComrPtion, Bannu.

Circle Officer

27.The question that arises for consideration is whether the andtheDirectorofACEKhyberPakhtunkhwaweregenuinelyunawarethat Mr.HumayunDilawarwasthesameAdditionalsessionsJudge,Islamabad, and had convicted and sentenced who had presided over the Toshakhana case Mr.ImranKhanNiazi'theformerChairmanPTl,tothreeyears,imprisonment

along with a fine; or whether, with fuIl knowledge of his identity and official status, they deliberately omitted his name and designation from the source report with a view to facilitating the registration of a criminal case against him'

Itfurtherrequiresdeterminationwhethersuchomissionwasactuatedby extraneous considerations, including political pressure or influence' and

with the whether the criminal proceedings were instituted without compliance mandatoryrequirementsoflaw,therebyvitiatingtheentireprocessonaccount ofmalafides,arbitrariness,andanulteriormotiveaimedatvictimisingand taking revenge against him?

28.The record reflects that the petitioners' through Miscellaneous copy of Daily Diary Application No. 166-8/2025, placed on record an attested Bannu' The said DDR Report No. 5 dated 06.09.2024 of Police Station ACE' reveals that a notice was served upon the Circle Officer' ACE' by Mt' through his counsel' Humayun Dilawar, in his capacity as a Judicial Officer' '/ and that this fact was duly communicated by the concemed ACE official to the the aforesaid Daily Diary higher authorities of the department' Admittedly' 09'09'2024' which clearly Report dated 06.09.2024 predates FIR No'2 dated demonstratesthattheofficialsoftheAnti-ComrptionEstablishmentwere status as a Judicial Officer before the already aware of Mr. Humayun Dilawar's registration of the FIR.

Niazi

29.Apart from the foregoing, it is an undisputed fact that Imran Khan isthefourderandformerChairmanofPakistanTehreek-e-Insaf(PTI)'a in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for a political party that has remained in government of common knowledge that numerous considerable period. It is equally a matter attracted extensive media legal proceedings involving Mr' Imran Khan reporting regarding the forums attention and public interest, with widespread pending and the stages of their before which such Proceedings were adjudication.

by pervasive

30.In these circumstances, particularly in an era characterized coupled with unprecedented public electronic, print, and social media coverage' access to information, the assertion that officials of the Anti-Comrption

EstablishmentwereunawirrebothofMr.HumayunDilawar,sstatusasaBPS-

20 Judicial Officer and of the Toshakhana proceedings during the course of the inquiry appears difficult to reconcile with the surrounding facts and circumstances. Such a position, on its face, raises legitimate questions

regarding the diligence, objectivity' and bona fides of the inquiry process'

prima facie, the conduct in question appears incompatible with the faithful and of authority diligent discharge of offrcial duties and tends to suggest an exercise coloured by mala fides rather than guided by lawful and bona fide

considerations.

it appropriate to

31.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court considers examlne, tn the light of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Anti-Comrption of the inquiry conducted by Establishment Rules, 1999, the legality and validity the Anti-comrption Establishment and the FIR subsequently registered

appreciation of the pursuant thereto. For ease of reference and proper controversy involved, Rules 3, 4, arrd 9 of the said Rules are reproduced

hereunder:

Rute-3. Preliminary/Open enquiries against Public Servants'---(l) public servants shall be Preliminary inquiries and investigation against from Govemment' initiated by the Establishment on complaints received Head of Departments or other reliablc sources'

(2)'Ihe Director shall initiate preliminary/open enquiries in order to ascertain the identity of the complaint or informer and geniuses of the comPlaint or information' Departmcnt/Office to

(3)It shatl be incumbent on rhe Head of concerned provide the relevant record required in connection with is made by the Establishment' enquiries/investigations as soon as a request Officers in the Provided the enquiry against the District Co-ordinate Head of Attached Districts, Secretaries to the Provincial Government' shall be initiated by O.pu.tr*nt, and other officers in BPS-19 and above the Chief Secretary' the Director with prior permission of

Criminal cases Rule-4. Registration of cases/arrest of accused"--(1) by the Bstablishment under the Prevention of Comrption shall be registered Pcnal Code' as have been set Act 1947 and under such sections of Pakistan forth in the Schedule to the Ordinance' public servants under

(2)Criminal cases shall be registered against accuscd below:- th" *.itten orders of the off,icers mentioned

l3

(a)Public Servants in BPS-I8 & below - - Director

(b)Public Servants in BPS-19 & above - - ChiefSecretary ProvidedthatforPublicservantsinBPS-lgandabove,theChief get the case Secretary, before according permission, may, in his discretion, examinedbyaJudicialofficerspeciallyappointedintheEstablishmentand for Administration Department of Government of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa the purpose.

for Provided further that no prior permission shall be required a result of a trap registration of a case against a public servant caught as arranged by the Establishment under the supervision of a Magistrate or any Sessions Judge or in other Gazetted Ofhcers authorised by the District and his absence by an Additional District and Sessions Judge' in the act of Ordinance' In such a committing an offence specified in the schedule to the case, a report shall immediately be made to the Chief Secretary' the Administrativc Secretary and immediate superior of the public servant concemed if he is in BPS-16 and above, and to thc appointing authority and

? immediate superior officer if the public servant is in BPS-15 and below'

not to

(3)If the compctent authority under sub-rule (2) above decides register a case, he shall record reasons therefor' the accused

(4)While making a request for registration of a case against prUti" ,"*unt, a simultaneous request may be made by the Establishment required during the to the authorities specified below if the arrcst is so investigation:

(a)Public Servants upto BPS-16 - - Director

(b)Public Servants in BPS-17 & above - - ChiefSecretary for the arrest of Provided that no prior pcrmission shall be necessary a public servant caught as a result ofa trap as mentioned in the last proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule-4'

alongwith Junior Rule-9. Wherc Senior Public Servant are involvcd Public Servants.---For the purpose of initiation of preliminary/open cases after investigation' or enquiri"s, registration of cases, dropping the taking a decision with regard referring the same for departmental action' or is involved' the competent to prose-cution, if more than one public servant which is in case of public uutho.ity for thesc decisions shail b" the one servants in the highest BPS' Additional

32.when confronted with the aforesaid rules, the leamed since the name of Humayun Dilawar Advocate General (AAG) contended that,

was not included in the inquiry proceedings, the Director Anti-comrption, permission being the competent authority under the law, had validly accorded that, to initiate an inquiry against the sub-Registrar, Baruru. He further argued upon completion of the inquiry and in light of the incriminating material

collected therein, the registration ofan FIR against a Judicial officer in BPS-20

was fully in consonance with the letter and spirit of the law'

33.ThesubmissionsadvancedbytheleamedAdditionalAdvocateGeneral, close scrutiny and though seemingly atffactive at first glance, do not withstand statutory framework' A are founded on a misconstruction of the relevant cumulativereadingofRules3,4andgleavesnoroomforambiguitythatthe DirectorAnti-Comrptionisnotvestedwiththeauthorityeithertoinitiatea of a criminal case preliminary/open inquiry against, or to order the registration against, a public servant in BPS-19 or above' Under the proviso to Rule 3' any

inquiry against such officers can only be initiated by the Director after ? obtaining prior permission of the Chief Secretary' Likewise' Rule a(2)(b) case against a public servant expressly mandates that registration of a criminal of the Chief Secretary' in BPS-19 and above requires the written approval exceptinthelimitedcaseofatrapoperation,whichadmittedlyisnotattracted that where officers of in the present matter. F urthermore, Rule 9 provides the competent authority shall different grades are involved in the same matter' be determined with reference to the officer holding the highest BPS' Therefore'

onceanofficerinBPS.lgorabovewasimplicated,theentirematterfellwithin theexclusivedomainoftheChiefSecretary,andtheDirectorAnti-Comrption could neither independently authorize the inquiry nor direct registration of the mandatory requirements is FIR. Any action taken in derogation of these withoutlawfulauthorityandsuffersfromajurisdictionaldefect'renderingthe proceedings legally unsustainable' conceming the

34.The Court shall now proceed to examine the record factualmatrixofthecaseinthelightofthesubmissionsmadebytheparties. reply shall be considered and Therefore, each objection and the corresponding decided separately and in detail as follows;

l. TheleamedAAGcontendedthatCivilsuitNo.362l|,ir|ed..Dilawar Khan v. Ghulam Hussain and another", instituted on 02'09'1976, was merely a suit for permanent injunction relating to Khasra Nos' 2603' 2604, and 2605, seeking protection against dispossession' The suit was

decreed by the leamed Senior Civil Judge, Bannu, on 30'03'1980' on According to the leamed AAG, a Wasiqa was subsequently registered 15.06.2022 vide Registry No. 1179, Bahi No' 1, Jild No' 613' on the basis of the said decree. The Wasiqa is alleged to be ex facie defective' as it does not disclose the requisite particulars of the Khata and Khasra numbers of the alienated property' Consequently' Mutation No' 5140 dated 24.01.2023, attested in favour of Dilawar Khan (Petitioner No. 1) from the Mahazi Malikan of Mouza Bharat on the basis of the said Wasiqa, is also stated to be illegal' in the a. From a perusal of the record, it is conclusively clear that paragraphs 8 and 9 above-mentioned judgment, the Court held in that in the that during cross-examination, Dilawar Khan stated possession of the yeat 197l,he had purchased the land under the adjoining co-owners (Mahazi Malikan)' The Court further placed on record' ? observed that according to the Khasra Girdawari the suit land stood in the possession of Dilawar Khan through tenants and concluded that he had proved his case beyond reasonable doubt.

AAG that the b. In these circumstances, the contention of the leamed and that the subsequent decree was merely an injunction decree or deception owing Wasiqa/registered deed was the result of fraud sustainable for to the non-mentioning of Khasra numbers is not that the two reasons. Firstly, it is not the case of the Govemment therefore' property in question is State land' The Govemment' Iackslocusstanditochallengetheproprietaryrightsofan individualonthegroundthatthepropertymaybelongtoother Wasiqa does private persons. Secondly, although the registered it specifically refers to not expressly mention the Khasra numbers' wherein the the litigation from which the hansaction emanates' Moreover' the relevant Khasra numbers are duly mentioned' been annulled nor set corresponding revenue entries have neither against the aside, and no legal proceedings have been initiated revenueoffrcialsresponsibleforrecordingorattestingthesame.

The next objection raised by the learned Additional Advocate General ll.

was that, on the basis of Registry/Wasiqa No' 1179 dated 15'06'2022' of land comprised in Dilawar Khan subsequently transfened 39 Kanals Khasra Nos. 5824 arrd 5827, situated in Mouza Bharat' Bannu' through

RegistryAMasiqa No. 1180 dated 15.06.2022 in favour of Central Provincial Elite Community Residentia (CPEC), which was subsequently reflected in Mutation No. 5141 dated 24'01'2023' According to the leamed AAG, the said Khasra numbers were admittedly never the subject matter of the earlier litigation or decree. It was contended that the extension of the beneht of the decree to properties not covered thereby amounted to a deliberate misuse of the judicial process and constituted an abuse of legal authority, attracting liuuitity under the relevant provisions of the Pakistan Penal code and the Prevention of ComrPtion Act.

a.TheobjectionraisedbytheleamedAdditionalAdvocateGeneral because is factually and legally devoid of substance and is absurd' in Deed No. 1180 dated 15'06'2022, Drlawr Khan himself referredtotheearlierDeedNo'1179dated15.06.2022asproofof his being the adjoining owner (Mahazi Malik) of the properly comprised in Khasra Nos' 5824 and 5827 situated in Mouza Bharat, Bannu.

b. It is pertinent to clarifi that Respondents No' 2 and 3' namely the Director, Anti-Comlption Establishment, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa' comments (at and the SHO, ACE Bannu, have annexed with their O page 2l) a communication dated 29.10.2025, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Bannu, bearing the subject: "Fraudulent Transfe rof Land and Subs uent Estab lishment of Private o unl Hous Sch eme 'C hal Provinci Elite Res idencia" xamination of Record and Further P ceedin Law. Tkough the said communication, the Deputy under revenue and Commissioner was requested to examine the relevant under regishation record and to initiate appropriate proceedings the rcryber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act' 1967 and other

legality and applicable laws. It was specifically sought that the be #iaiay of the impugned mutations and registered instruments coordination be verified, the land in dispute be demarcated' and madewiththeconcernedhousing,development,andmunicipal approval' or authorities to prevent any further transfer, alienation' development of tn. t*a pending inquiry and lawful determination the of the matter' Consequently, acting upon the said request' Deputy Commissioner, Bannu, constituted an inquiry committee of the comprising eight revenue officials under the supervision Additional Assistant Commissioner (Revenue)' Bannu' to

examinethematter,scrutinizetherelevantrevenuerecord,and its hndings and recommendations in accordance with law' submit

c. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the committee submitted its report to the Deputy Commissioner, who forwarded the same to the Director, Anti-Comrption Establishment, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, on 18.11.2025. Copies of the report were also circulated to the concemed authorities, including the Senior Member Board of Revenue (SMBR), Khyber Pakhtunkhwa' The report has been placed on record by Respondents No' 2 and 3 along with their respective comments.

d. The Eight-Member Committee reported that Khasra No' 5824 (old Khasra No. 2594), measuring 10 Kanal and 17 Marla' is in the exclusive ownership and possession of Mr' Dilawar Khan' The

Committee further reported that Khasra No' 5827 (old Khasra No' the extent 2593) was under the occupation of Mr' Dilawar Khan to of 28 Kanal and 03 Marla, while the remaining area of old Khasra

No. 2593 was found to be in the occupation and possession of of the Mouza' seven other adjacent land owners (Mahazi Malikan) Bharat, whose names and respective holdings were duly recorded

t/ in the rePort.

e. It is further mentioned in report that Khasra Nos' 5813' Ownership rights of 5820, and 5823 still exist as a water channel' Mr. Dilawar Khan and other Mahazi Milkiyat owners are 11' Zimman"r" supported by Wajib-ul-Arz (1904-05), Entry No' *ii"h p.orid.s that when a public way or water channel ceases to exist, ownership vests in adjoining Mouza owners' It was further clarified that after the dam construction in 1952-53' the channel adjoining owners narrowed significantly, water flow reduced' and cultivated the Mahazi lands' The leamed Senior Civil Judge decided the matter in favour of Mr' Dilawar Khan' and Registered Deed No. 1179 was attested pursuant to the decree dated Moreover' the 30.03.1980 and the Wajib-ul-Arz provisions' also attested in the following mutations of similar nature were same Mouza:

MutationNo. Date of Attestation

18189 24.09.r975 18190 24.09.r97s

t9964 2s.08.1984

f. The Committee observed that, in light of the revenue and registrationrecord,thedemarcationreport,andthedecreedated 30.03.1980 passed by the leamed Senior Civil Judge, Registered Deeds Nos. 1779 and 1180 are supported by sufficient legal justification. Consequently, Mutation Nos' 18232 and 19329' havingbeenattestedonthebasisofthesaidregistereddeeds,also appear to be legally valid and justified' Furthermore' the demarcation proceedings revealed that no excess land has been occupied by Mr. Dilawar Khan, his sons, or CPEC Residencia'

35.In view of the foregbing discussion, the material available on record, basis for the when considered cumulatively, fails to disclose any lawful record reveals material registration or continuation of the impugned FIR' The facts' and a manifest procedural irregularities, deliberate disregard of relevant failureonthepartoftheconcemedAnti-ComrptionEstablishmentofficialsto exercise the diligence, care, and objectivity mandated by law' Consequently'

theinquiryandtheresultingFlRappeartohavebeeninitiatedwithoutlawful of material in conscious disregard and apparent concealment justification and investigating authorities' facts that were within the knowledge of the an inquiry

36.The continuation of criminal proceedings founded upon such and would result in grave would amount to an abuse of the process of law FIR No'2' dated0g'09'2024' miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the impugned under Sections 40g,41g,420,468 ond 47l ofthe Pakistan Penal Code' 1860'

read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Comrption Act' 1947' registered at together with all proceedings conducted Police Station Anti.Comrption, Bannu, pursuant thereto' is hereby quashed'

Circle Officer' Anti- 37 , The conduct of the concemed Director and lack of Comrption Establishment, prima facie discloses abuse of authonty and bona fides, resulting in the regishation of a criminal case against a serving

BPS-20JudicialofficerunderthelslamabadHighCourtthroughaninquiry in law' devoid of lawful basis and unsustainable of Khyber

38.Consequently, the Chief Secretary' Govemment authority pakhtunkhwa, is directed to place this judgment before the competent proceedings' in accordance with law' against the forthwith for initiation of

smissed nlbninie.

concerned officers. The competent authority shall hx responsibility and take

appropriate disciplinary action after due process. A compliance report shall be

submitted to the Registrar of this Court within sixty (60) days for placement

before the Court.

39.This petition is allowed in terms of the aforesaid directions' Mi lastlcc Abdal Fayaz Announced

(Ghafoor Zaman) -Sd- Judge '"w

JUDGE

Date of hearing and announcement of judgment ........ ...... ... 05052026

Date o[ preparation and signing of judgment............. .- 02062026

v6 t-/

l?"ltl* *". ,r.,n" Muhammad rsriq Arridi Hon'ble Mr' Justice Srbit Ulhh Khrn