Jamshad Khan VS The State etc

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)

W.P. No. 1548 of 2026

Jamshed Khan Vs.

The State and 3 others

Petitioner by : Raja Shuja Ur Rehman Advocate.

Respondents by : Mr. Usman Rasool Ghuman, AAG.

M/s Shafqat Abbas Tarar, Tahir Saleem, Ch. Fakhar Abbas, Sameer Siddique and Shoeba Akhtar Advocates.

Mr. Asfand Yar Khan, Inspector FIA/ACC.

Mr. Bashir ASI, P.S. Tarnol.

Date of Hearing : 30-09-2026.

SHAHRUKH ARJUMAND, J.-

1.The petitioner [Jamshed Khan] has sought quashment of FIR No. 01 dated 02-1-2026, registered under Sections 419, 420, 384, 468, 471, 34 PPC with Police Station Anti-Corruption Circle, FIA, Islamabad (“Impugned FIR”).

2.Brief facts, as set out in the memorandum of petition, are that the petitioner claims to be owner in possession of certain land, while alleging that respondent No.4 has been attempting to assert rights over the same. According to the petitioner, the dispute between the parties is essentially of a private/revenue nature, yet Impugned FIR has been registered by the Federal Investigation Agency (“FIA”) against him. The petitioner has also referred to other FIRs lodged by him against respondent No.4 and by respondent No.4 against him, and contends that the Impugned FIR was

W.P. No.1548/2026

registered after considerable delay. The dispute, traces back to an agreement to sell dated 19.12.2024 executed between respondent No.4 and Raja Muhammad Saeed in respect of land measuring 500 kanals situated in the revenue estate of village Masan, Tehsil and District Mianwali, for a total consideration of Rs.250,000,000/-. It was agreed that respondent No.4 would transfer his plaza situated at Khanna Kak, presently known as Haider Ali Plaza, within the limits of Metropolitan Corporation, Rawal Town, Rawalpindi, towards part consideration, while the remaining amount was to be paid through Cheques Nos.00000103 and 00000104 for Rs.10,000,000/- and Rs.15,000,000/-. Pursuant to the said transaction, Raja Muhammad Saeed transferred 500 kanals of land in favour of respondent No.4 and, subsequently, at his request, an additional 94 kanals was also transferred, making the total area 594 kanals. Possession of the land was allegedly delivered to respondent No.4 in the presence of witnesses. The corresponding mutation and revenue record were relied upon in support of the transaction. According to the petitioner, respondent No.4 subsequently transferred the aforementioned plaza through registered Sale Deed No.002-2024-0009863, sanctioned on 30.12.2024. The petitioner alleges that the cheques issued towards the outstanding consideration were not encashed despite repeated demands and were ultimately dishonoured on presentation. It is further alleged that respondent No.4 represented that he intended to sell the land to a Chinese company and would clear the outstanding amount upon completion of that transaction, but the proposed transaction did not materialize. The petitioner further alleges that on 05.11.2025, approximately eleven months after the transaction, respondent No.4 forcibly dispossessed Raja Muhammad Saeed from the aforesaid plaza and retained possession despite the alleged non- payment of the remaining sale consideration. A local commission report has also been referred to in this regard. Consequently, Raja Muhammad Saeed lodged FIR No.1011/2025 dated 12.12.2025 under Section 489-F PPC, at Police Station Westridge, Rawalpindi, alleging dishonour of the cheques issued by respondent No.4. According to the petitioner, the original cheques(s) and dishonour slip were produced during investigation

W.P. No.1548/2026

and the investigating officer, after investigation, opined that respondent No.4 had committed the alleged offence. Apart from the aforesaid transaction, the petitioner states that he entered into a separate agreement to sell with respondent No.4 in respect of land measuring five kanals bearing Khasra No.1082/2, situated in the revenue estate of Jhangi Syedan, Islamabad, for a consideration of Rs.100,000,000/-. The petitioner claims to have paid the entire consideration against a receipt issued by respondent No.4. It is further alleged that respondent No.4 procured preparation of the relevant mutation for transfer of the land in the petitioner's favour. The petitioner has also asserted that he purchased a semi-constructed house built upon Plot No.91, Street No.27, Block-D, Sector Loi Bher, FECHS, Islamabad, for a consideration of Rs.45,000,000/-. According to him, the sale agreement was executed, the consideration was paid, and an irrevocable general power of attorney along with the original documents was handed over to him. On the basis of the above transactions and the inter se disputes between the parties, the petitioner maintains that the allegations forming the basis of the Impugned FIR relate to private transactions and revenue/property matters. He further asserts that the FIR was registered belatedly and is an outcome of the ongoing disputes between the parties. Hence, this petition for quashing the Impugned FIR.

3.The Impugned FIR states that consequent upon Enquiry No. 310/2025, It is transpired that during the period from 2024 to 2025, accused persons namely (1). Mehtab Qureshi s/o Aftab Iqbal Qureshi r/o House No. A-1, Mohallah Seham, Peshawar Road, Rawalpindi and (2). Jamshed Khan s/o Nadar Khan r/o Ghaffar Khan Garden Road, Saral Kharbuza, Mohallah Basti Anwar-ul-Madina, Islamabad (“Petitioner”), acting jointly, deliberately, and with pre-planned criminal intent, entered into a well- orchestrated scheme of cheating, Impersonation and fraud and, in furtherance of their common intention, illegally, dishonestly and forcibly extracted from the complainant Rs.5,000,000/-, a commercial plaza worth Rs.20,000,000/-, a house worth Rs.450,000,000/-, and 05 Kanal land situated in Sector G-15, Islamabad worth Rs. 100,000,000/-, thereby

W.P. No.1548/2026

causing colossal wrongful loss to the complainant and corresponding unlawful gain to themselves. That the accused persons, with malafide Intention from the very Inception, falsely Impersonated themselves as authorized representatives of, China Three Gorges Corporation (CTG), a foreign state-owned enterprise, and brazenly misrepresented that the said company Intended to purchase land in Pakistan under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project. Relying upon this deliberate, calculated and false representation, the accused persons dishonestly induced and deceived the complainant into parting with the aforesaid huge sums of money and highly valuable immovable properties as so called commission for facilitating a land transaction relating to 500 Kanal land situated in Mouza Masan, Tehsil and District Mianwall, purportedly to be transferred from the complainant to China Three Gorges Corporation (CTG). That It subsequently stood fully revealed that the accused persons were imposters having no authority, connection or mandate whatsoever from CTG, and that the entire transaction was a sham, fictitious and fraudulent enterprise executed with the sole object of plundering the complainant of his money and properties, thereby constituting grave offences of cheating, impersonation, fraud and forgery, causing massive wrongful loss to the complainant and unjust enrichment of the accused persons. In view of above mentioned facts, prima facie, a case is made out. Competent authority has accorded permission for registration of criminal case vide letter No. 4436 dated 31-12-2025 against accused persons namely (1) Mehtab Qureshi slo Aftab Iqbal Qureshi s/o House No. A-1, Mohallah Seham, Peshawar Road, Rawalpindi and (2) Petitioner. Thus, instant case is being registered U/s 419, 420, 384, 468, 471 R/W 34 PPC. Roles of others including (1) Raja Muhammad Saeed Khan s/o Raja Muhammad Aziz rlo House No. ZB-3607, Mohallah Fauji Colony, Pir Wadhel, Rawalpindi, (2). Muhammad Atif and (3). Muhammad Asim, if Involved, will be trashed out during the course of Investigation.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Impugned FIR is without lawful authority and liable to be quashed, as the dispute

W.P. No.1548/2026

essentially arises out of a private transaction between the parties and falls outside the jurisdiction of FIA. Referring to the preamble and Section 3 of the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974, learned counsel argued that FIA is empowered to inquire into and investigate only the offences specified in the Schedule having the requisite nexus with matters within the Federal domain. He relied upon Director General, FIA and others vs. Kamran Iqbal and others, 2016 SCMR 447 and Syed Mushahid Shah and others v. Federal Investigation Agency and others, 2017 SCMR 1218 to contend that the FIA cannot assume jurisdiction over a purely private dispute in the absence of such nexus. It was further argued that the Impugned FIR had been registered after an unexplained delay of more than one year, contained false and concocted allegations, and did not disclose commission of any cognizable offence by the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the assumption of jurisdiction by the FIA, despite lack of lawful authority, amounted to an excess of jurisdiction and manifest malafide, besides constituting misuse of the process of law. He maintained that the petitioner was entitled to protection against an unwarranted and unfair investigation and harassment and that the executive authorities were bound to act fairly, justly and in accordance with law, as recognized in re: Tariq Aziz-ud-Din and others, 2010 SCMR 1301. He further submitted that the mere availability of an alternate remedy did not bar the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court where the FIR was patently illegal or without lawful authority, placing reliance upon Miraj Khan vs. Gul Ahmed and 3 others, 2000 SCMR 122 and Rehmat Ali and others vs. Station House Officer and others, PLD 2004 Lahore 65. On these premises, learned counsel prayed that the Impugned FIR be declared illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect and consequently quashed.

5.On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4 controverted the contentions of learned counsel for petitioner and submitted that the petitioner and his co-accused with malafide intention falsely impersonated themselves as authorized representative of China Three Gorges Corporation (CTG), a foreign state-owned enterprise and brazenly

W.P. No.1548/2026

misrepresented that the said company intended to purchase land in Pakistan under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project; that the petitioner has alternate remedies available; that this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the disputed question of fact in constitutional jurisdiction; that FIA is authorized to take cognizance in respect of several offences under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 besides the offences mentioned in Schedule of the Federal Investigation Agency, 1974. He prayed for dismissal of instant petition. In support of his contentions he has relied upon Col. Shah Sadiq vs. Muhammad Ashiq and others, 2006 SCMR 276; Muhammad Saleem Bhatti vs. Syed Safdar Ali Rizvi and 2 others, 2006 SCMR1957; Muhammad Latif vs. The State and another, 2023 P Cr. L J 1688. The learned Assistant Attorney General has adopted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6.Arguments heard and record perused with the able assistance of learned counsel for the parties.

7.The principal question requiring determination is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, FIA was competent to register the Impugned FIR and undertake investigation into the dispute between the parties. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the controversy emanates from private agreements to sell, alleged non-payment of consideration, transfer of immovable property, possession thereof, and consequential revenue/property disputes between private individuals, whereas learned counsel for respondent No.4 maintains that the offences mentioned in the FIR fall within the investigative domain of FIA.

8.There is no cavil with the general proposition advanced on behalf of respondent No.4 that the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court is not ordinarily exercised for resolution of disputed questions of fact and that an accused is normally expected to face investigation and avail the remedies provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The principles enunciated in case of Col. Shah Sadiq (Supra) and Muhammad Saleem

W.P. No.1548/2026

(Supra) therefore, remain relevant where the question of quashment depends upon determination of disputed facts or appreciation of evidence. Likewise, case of Muhammad Latif (Supra) relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No.4, proceeds on the premise that where the scheduled offence allegedly concerns the Federal Government or its agency, and the factual allegations require investigation, interference at the investigative stage is ordinarily unwarranted.

9.The present case, however, stands on a materially different footing. The petitioner does not invite this Court to determine the title to the property, the validity of the agreements, the genuineness of the receipts or mutations, or the question as to which party is ultimately entitled to possession or consideration. Rather, the challenge is directed to the “competence of FIA itself to assume jurisdiction over the dispute”. Such a question goes to the root of the proceedings and, where the lack of jurisdiction is apparent from the nature of the transaction and the statutory framework, cannot be left to be determined after the petitioner has undergone the entire process of an investigation initiated by an authority lacking lawful competence.

10.The distinction drawn by the Supreme Court in Kamran Iqbal and others (Supra) is particularly apposite. In that case, although section 489-F PPC had been included in the Schedule to the FIA Act, 1974, the Supreme Court held that such inclusion, by itself, did not confer an unrestricted jurisdiction upon FIA in respect of every offence falling under the scheduled provision. The Court examined the preamble and scheme of the FIA Act and held that FIA's investigative mandate is connected with offences concerning the Federal Government and matters falling within the Federal domain. Where the dispute was purely between private individuals and there was no involvement of the Federal Government or any governmental entity, FIA was held to have no jurisdiction; an investigation launched beyond jurisdiction was held to be malafide and without lawful authority.

W.P. No.1548/2026

11.The principle is of direct application here. The material placed before this Court shows that the genesis of the controversy lies in transactions concerning immovable properties between private persons. The principal transaction relates to an agreement to sell dated 19.12.2024 concerning 500 kanals of land, followed by transfer of an additional 94 kanals, alleged delivery of possession, mutations in the revenue record, transfer of the plaza offered towards consideration, alleged dishonour of cheques and subsequent disputes regarding possession and payment. The record further refers to separate transactions concerning five kanals of land at Jhangi Syedan and a semi-constructed house at Lohi Bher. Thus, even if the allegations of the complainant are accepted at their face value for the purposes of examining jurisdiction, the controversy remains rooted in “private contractual, property, possession and revenue transactions between private parties”.

12.The subsequent invocation of sections 419, 420, 384, 468 and 471 PPC cannot, by itself, alter the essential character of the controversy for purposes of determining FIA's jurisdiction. The question is not merely whether the sections mentioned in the FIR are included in the Schedule to the FIA Act, but whether the alleged offences, in the factual setting in which they are alleged to have been committed, bear the requisite nexus with the Federal Government or matters falling within the Federal domain. The case of Kamran Iqbal and others (Supra) makes it clear that the mere fact that an offence is a scheduled offence does not confer upon FIA an unfettered discretion to investigate every such offence arising out of a purely private dispute. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in Syed Mushahid Shah and others (Supra) emphasized that a special statutory regime prevails within the field specifically occupied by it and that jurisdiction cannot be assumed merely on the basis of a general provision.

13.There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the petitioner or his co-accused with malafide intention falsely impersonated themselves as authorized representative of China Three Gorges Corporation (CTG), a

W.P. No.1548/2026

foreign state-owned enterprise and misrepresented that the said company intended to purchase land in Pakistan under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project. Even report dated 04-2-2026 submitted by SECP also does not indicate any such incident of involvement of petitioner or his co-accused in this regard.

14.In the present case, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the Federal Government, any Federal Government department, agency, instrumentality or federally regulated transaction is involved in the underlying dispute. The complainant and the petitioner are private persons, the properties are privately claimed, the agreements are private instruments, and the alleged consideration was to be discharged through private commercial arrangements. The mere registration of an FIR under provisions of PPC which may otherwise fall within the Schedule to the FIA Act cannot, in the absence of the requisite Federal nexus, transform a private property dispute into a matter falling within the exclusive investigative domain of FIA.

15.The contention that the allegations involve offences of cheating, forgery, use of forged documents or extortion does not materially advance the case of respondent No.4. The question at this stage is not whether such offences can ever be investigated by FIA, but whether “these alleged offences, arising from these particular transactions, are within FIA's statutory jurisdiction”. On the facts disclosed in the petition and the record, the answer is in the negative. If every private dispute involving an allegation under a scheduled PPC provision were permitted to be investigated by FIA merely because of the section invoked in the FIR, the distinction between the jurisdiction of FIA and the ordinary police machinery would become substantially blurred. This is precisely the concern addressed by the Supreme Court in Kamran Iqbal and others (Supra).

16.The pendency or availability of civil, revenue or criminal remedies between the parties does not cure an inherent want of jurisdiction in the

W.P. No.1548/2026

investigating agency. Nor does the existence of disputed questions concerning the agreements, consideration, possession or mutations authorize FIA to assume a jurisdiction which the statute does not confer. Those questions may appropriately be adjudicated by the forums competent under the relevant laws; they cannot, however, be relied upon to sustain an investigation initiated by an authority lacking jurisdiction.

17.The objection based upon alternate remedies also does not constitute an absolute bar in the circumstances of the present case. It is settled that constitutional jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked to interrupt a lawful investigation merely because an accused disputes the allegations. However, where the very assumption of jurisdiction by the investigating agency is challenged and the record demonstrates that the agency has acted beyond the authority conferred upon it by law, the availability of an alternate remedy cannot compel a citizen to submit to proceedings which are without lawful authority. The Supreme Kamran Iqbal and others (Supra) itself upheld quashment of an FIA FIR where the agency lacked jurisdiction over the underlying private dispute.

18.The authorities relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No.4 are distinguishable on their facts and merits and do not detract from the above conclusion. Col. Shah Sadiq (Supra) and Muhammad Saleem Bhatti (Supra) concern the settled restraint exercised by constitutional Courts where disputed questions of fact require evidence and the criminal process is otherwise being undertaken by a competent forum. They do not lay down that constitutional jurisdiction can never be exercised where the initiation of proceedings itself is shown to be without jurisdiction. Indeed, the principle governing the present case is supplied by the more specific authority of Kamran Iqbal and others (Supra) where the Supreme Court considered precisely the competence of FIA in a private dispute and found the investigation to be without lawful authority.

19.Likewise, case of Muhammad Latif (Supra) is distinguishable because, as noticed in that judgment, the scheduled offences there were

W.P. No.1548/2026

allegedly committed against an agency of the Federal Government and, therefore, the necessary Federal nexus existed. In the present case, no such nexus has been demonstrated. The case of Col. Shah Sadiq (Supra) therefore cannot be invoked to sustain an investigation which, on the face of the record, has been initiated by an agency lacking statutory competence.

20.The plea of delay and alleged malafide, considered independently, may not by itself be sufficient to quash an FIR where jurisdiction otherwise exists. Nevertheless, the chronology placed before the Court particularly the pre-existing property and monetary disputes, the earlier FIR No.1011/2025 under section 489-F PPC arising from the alleged dishonour of cheques, the rival transactions and proceedings between the parties, and the subsequent registration of the Impugned FIR provides the necessary factual background for examining the true nature of the controversy. The Court, however, need not enter into the merits of these allegations or record any finding as to the genuineness of the competing claims. The FIR is liable to be examined and struck down principally because the agency registering and investigating it lacks jurisdiction in the circumstances disclosed.

21.It is also important to clarify that this Court is not recording any finding regarding the civil or criminal liability of respondent No.4 or the petitioner in respect of the underlying transactions. Questions concerning ownership, payment of consideration, validity of agreements, possession, alleged forgery, dishonour of cheques, or entitlement to any property are left open for determination by the competent forums in accordance with law. Nothing contained in this order shall prejudice any such proceedings or remedy available to either party.

22.For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that the Impugned FIR, arising from a dispute which is essentially between private individuals concerning private property and contractual transactions and which has no demonstrated nexus with the Federal Government or any

W.P. No.1548/2026

matter falling within the Federal domain, could not lawfully have been registered and investigated by FIA merely because the offences invoked therein are mentioned in the Schedule to the FIA Act. The assumption of jurisdiction by FIA is, therefore, without lawful authority and the proceedings emanating therefrom cannot be permitted to continue.

23.Consequently, the instant petition is ALLOWED. Impugned FIR No.01 dated 02.01.2026, registered under sections 419, 420, 384, 468, 471 and 34 PPC at Police Station Anti-Corruption Circle, FIA, Islamabad together with all proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed, being without lawful authority and jurisdiction. This order shall, however, not preclude the competent local police or any other forum having lawful jurisdiction from proceeding in accordance with law, if otherwise warranted on the basis of a fresh complaint/FIR and subject to fulfilment of all legal requirements. The parties shall be at liberty to pursue their respective civil, revenue or other lawful remedies concerning the underlying transactions.

(SHAHRUKH ARJUMAND)

JUDGE

Approved for reporting.

Tanveer Ahmed/*