Mir Awais VS DG FIA etc

ORDER SHEET

IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Writ Petition No.4256 of 2026 Mir Awais Versus Director General FIA, etc.

S. No. of Date of Order with signature of Judge and that of parties or order/ order/ counsel where necessary. proceedings Proceedings 24.09.2026 M/s Zia ur Rehman, & Sajjad Baloch Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. Arshid Mahmood Kiani Deputy Attorney General with Shahzaib S.I./FIA.

It is the grievance of the petitioner that the earlier enquiry No.ENQ-AHTC-ICT-123/2026 was conducted by the FIA-Abbotabad, the matter was duly examined from the available record and upon completion of the enquiry the same was closed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notwithstanding such closure, after passage of considerable time, the same allegations arising out of the same incident have again been taken up by the FIA, Islamabad, without any lawful justification.

2.Learned counsel adds that once the competent authority of FIA had examined the matter and brought the enquiry to its logical conclusion, the same Agency could not, merely through the change of office or investigating officer, revive the very same allegations and subject the petitioner to a second round of enquiry on an identical factual foundation.

3.Heard. Record perused.

4.Record reveals that the subject matter of the present enquiry is not a distinct or subsequent occurrence. Rather, it arises out of the same incident and allegations which had earlier been examined by FIA, Abbottabad. The jurisdiction under Article 199(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution is attracted where a

public authority exercises statutory power in a manner which is without lawful authority, without jurisdiction, or in disregard of the prescribed legal framework. Although, High Court does not interfere with an investigation merely because another view of the facts may be possible, it can intervene where the action of the investigating agency is shown to be without lawful authority or constitutes an abuse of the process of law. Reliance is placed upon “FIA through Director General, FIA and others v. Syed Hamid Ali Shah and others” (2023 PLD 265) whereby the august Supreme Court recognized the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court to declare an action of an investigative agency to be without lawful authority where the statutory power has not been lawfully exercised.

5.In the present case, no fresh incident has been alleged. Respondents have not been able to demonstrate before this Court any reasonable ground which could establish that the earlier concluded enquiry was validly reopened in accordance with statutory framework, rules or applicable FIA procedure. Merely on the basis of subsequent enquiry which has been initiated from Islamabad does not confer a fresh jurisdiction upon the Agency to reconsider the same matter from the beginning. A change of office cannot amount to a change in cause of action, and a change of investigating officer cannot, by itself, constitute fresh material. If the Agency was of the view that the earlier enquiry required reconsideration, it may avail alternate remedy provided under the law. In the absence thereof, the second enquiry amounts to a repetition of the earlier exercise. It is, therefore, held that the earlier enquiry

conducted by FIA Abbottabad having been concluded and closed on the basis of very same incident and allegation, the same could not be reopened. Such a course amounts to placing the accused person in a double jeopardy which is contrary to the constitutional protection guaranteed under Article 13 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Resultantly, the impugned initiation/ continuation of the subsequent enquiry by FIA, Islamabad, and issuing of notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C, is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Respondent-FIA, Islamabad is directed not to proceed further with the impugned enquiry on the same factual foundation.

6.With the above observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of.

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

ARShah”

APPROVED FOR REPORTING.

(CHIEF JUSTICE)