Sardar Nisar Gulzar Khan Advocate

30/01/2026

لاہور ہائیکورٹ کا فیصلہ: پولیس کیریکٹر سرٹیفکیٹ میں بریت / خارج شدہ مقدمات ظاہر نہ کرنے کا حکم

عدالت نے واضح کیا ہے کہ جب کسی ملزم کو اہل عدالت کے ذریعہ بری کر دیا جائے، تو قانون کی نظر میں وہ تمام الزامات سے مکمل طور پر آزاد سمجھا جائے گا۔

ایسی صورت میں، کسی بھی سرکاری دستاویز، جیسے کہ پولیس کیریکٹر سرٹیفکیٹ میں متعلقہ ایف آئی آر کا ذکر یا شامل کرنا، جب کہ بریت کا فیصلہ حتمی ہو چکا ہو، غیر ضروری اور غیر قانونی ہے۔

عدالت نے قرار دیا ہے کہ یہ عمل نہ صرف آئین کے آرٹیکل 14 کے تحت انسانی وقار کے حق کی خلاف ورزی ہے بلکہ ایک شہری پر غیر منصفانہ اور دائمی بدنامی بھی عائد کرتا ہے، حالانکہ وہ عدالتی کارروائی کے ذریعہ مکمل طور پر بے قصور ثابت ہو چکا ہے۔

حتمی بریت کے بعد، اگر کوئی سرکاری اتھارٹی کسی فرد کو دوبارہ مجرمانہ الزام سے جوڑتی ہے تو یہ نہ صرف بریت کے فیصلے کو نقصان پہنچاتا ہے بلکہ انصاف، وقار اور معصومیت کے بنیادی اصولوں کو بھی پامال کرتا ہے۔

لہٰذا، درخواست گزار کو پولیس کیریکٹر سرٹیفکیٹ جاری کرنے کا حق ہے جو اس کی بریت اور کسی بھی موجودہ مجرمانہ ذمہ داری کی غیر موجودگی کو ظاہر کرے۔
WP 40844/25
عبدالرحمن فریاد بنام حکومت پنجاب وغیرہ
PLJ 2026 LHR.84

30/01/2026

26/01/2026

سپرم کورٹ نے اپنے فیصلہ میں قرار دیا کہ عام شہریوں کو بغیر کسی وجہ کہ تھانہ لیجا کر ہراساں کرنے اور انکی تذلیل کرنے والے پولیس اہلکاروں کو تاحیات سرکاری نوکری سے برخاستگی کے حقدار ہیں اور وہ تا حیات سرکاری نوکری کے لیے نااہل ہوں گے
2019 SCMR 944
ORDER
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---This petition assails the judgment of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal dated 5.6.2017 which affirms the order of dismissal from service of the petitioner passed by the CCPO, Lahore on 19.3.2015. The said order was passed after the departmental inquiry was held by the SSP Operations, Lahore. Some aspects of the complaint against the petitioner may have been disputed by the latter but two facts are admitted and in fact to that extent no dispute has been raised by the petitioner even now: firstly, that the petitioner stopped the two men and a woman travelling on the road late at night. The petitioner could not give any explanation or reason except what is now stated to be his suspicion about those persons; secondly, the petitioner took them to the police station. It is clear that there is no allegation or disclosure of the commission of a cognizance offence committed by the said persons. Leaving aside the disputed allegations of bribery the said admitted facts reflect the mindset of the petitioner and constitute a serious abuse of authority. For such abuse of authority to interfere with the lives of the ordinary citizen, one can infer that the purpose was to extract some advantage, whether pecuniary or otherwise. In the circumstance, therefore, the punishment inflicted on the petitioner is justified. Learned counsel has relied on the case of Khalid Mansoor v. Director, FIA, Rawalpindi 2008 SCMR 1174, wherein the facts are completely different because the FIA Officer was under the duty to check passports which he omitted to do in one instance and disciplinary proceedings against him relaxed. In the present case there are two salient facts noted by us above, which are undisputed; consequently, neither further inquiry was necessary nor there was any limitation on the competent authority to pass the impugned order of dismissal against the petitioner.
Petition is dismissed and leave to appeal declined.
MWA/S-13/SC Petition dismissed.

26/01/2026

بیوی کو گھورنا، طلاق یا دوسری شادی کی دھمکی دینا اور بیوی کو مرضی کے بغیر گھر میں دیگر افراد کے ساتھ رکھنا قابل سزا جرم قرار ، جرم کے مرتکب افراد کو تین سال تک کی سزا، ایک لاکھ روپے تک کا جرمانہ بھی عائد کیا جا سکے گا۔جرمانہ ادا نہ کرنے پر مزید 6 ماہ قید بھگتنا ہوگی۔
پارلیمنٹ کے مشترکہ اجلاس میں بیوی بچوں کے سماجی تحفظ سے متعلق قانون منظور کرلیا گیا

26/01/2026

2025 YLR 2764
Mere recovery of narcotics, by itself, is not sufficient in the eyes of law. It is incumbent upon the prosecution to affirmatively establish that the recovered contraband was in the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused and that the accused had knowledge thereof.
The Honourable Court has held that unless both possession and mens rea (knowledge) are proved beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction of an accused in narcotics cases cannot be sustained.

محض منشیات کی برآمدگی بذاتِ خود قانون کی نظر میں کافی نہیں ہوتی، بلکہ استغاثہ پر یہ لازم ہے کہ وہ ٹھوس اور قابلِ اعتماد شواہد کے ذریعے یہ ثابت کرے کہ برآمد شدہ منشیات ملزم کے شعوری اور خصوصی قبضہ میں تھیں اور ملزم کو اس کے بارے میں مکمل علم تھا۔
معزز عدالت نے قرار دیا ہے کہ جب تک قبضہ اور علم (Mens Rea) دونوں کو شک سے بالاتر ثابت نہ کیا جائے، منشیات کے مقدمہ میں کسی شخص کو مجرم قرار نہیں دیا جا سکتا۔
حوالہ: 2025 YLR 2764

16/01/2026

Divorce‑‑‑Iddat‑‑‑Period of Iddat starts from date of judgment and decree of the Court.
1999-CLC-514
[Lahore]
Before Mrs. Fakhar‑un‑Nisa Khokhar, J
Mst. MAHPARA‑‑‑Petitioner
versus
S. ARSHAD MAHMOOD and another‑‑‑Respondents
Writ Petition No.5974 of 1997, heard on 8th October, 1998
(a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (###V of 1964)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑ Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑High Court has no supervisory jurisdiction on Special Tribunals of Family Court as provided by West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964--While sitting over judgment passed by Special Tribunals under Family Courts Act, High Court Acts as Family Court under West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964.
(b) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (###V of 1964)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 17‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Preamble ‑‑‑Procedure‑‑ Applicability' of Civil Procedure Code‑‑‑Settlement of matrimonial affairs between spouses‑‑‑Procedure in family suits is made more easier by deviation from procedure of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
(c) Muhammadan Law‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑ Divorce‑‑‑Iddat‑‑‑Period of Iddat starts from date of judgment and decree of the Court.
(d) West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑R. 13‑‑‑Limitation to file application for setting aside ex parte decree starts from date of judgment and decree of dissolution of marriage‑‑‑Ex pane‑‑‑Notice to Chairman, Arbitration Council by petitioner for getting certificate of effectiveness of divorce‑‑‑Respondent husband appeared before Chairman, Arbitration Council and expressly gave consent to issue a certificate of effectiveness of divorce which was issued by the Chairman‑‑‑Petitioner got remarried to some other person and in that wedlock a child was born‑‑‑Ex parte decree was set aside by Trial Court‑‑‑Respondent, husband who had knowledge of proceedings and had given consent to Chairman, Arbitration Council to issue certificate of effectiveness of divorce filed application for setting aside ex parte decree thereafter‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Period of limitation to set aside ex parte decree starts from date of judgment and decree or from date of knowledge‑‑‑Application for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed being time‑barred in circumstances.
Pervaiz Ahmad v. Tahra Shaheen alias. Balquees Shahzadi 1988 CLC 1444; Ainuddin Karikar v. Salatanness Bibi PLD 1953 Dacca 216; Mst. Fahmida Bibi v. Mukhtar Ahmad and another PLD 1972 Lah. 694 and Muhammad Shamim Siddiqui v. Mrs. Kausar Aziz and others 1982 CLC 1972 ref.
(e) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (###V of 1964)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 21(2)(3)‑‑‑Divorce‑‑‑Certificate of effectiveness of divorce‑‑‑Husband had given consent for issuance of such certificate‑‑‑Such certificate having not been challenged before Competent Authority had attained finality.
Qamar Zaman Qureshi for Petitioner.
Ch. Shazib Saeed for Respondent No.2
Date of hearing: 8th October, 1998.

16/01/2026

لے پالک (گود لیے گئے) بچے کی شرعی و قانونی حیثیت کے بارے لاہور ہائیکورٹ کا نہایت معلوماتی رہنما فیصلہ

The adoption of child has no legal effect in Shariah rather it is for emotional and psychological satisfaction. The adoptive parents may treat an adopted child as their natural child in the matters of love, affection and general behaviour. The adoption of a child with the purpose of providing shelter to him is virtuous and carries much reward for welfare of the Child but adoption in Islam has no legal consequence. The child should be attributed to the natural parents, and not to the father or mother who has adopted him and marriage of adopted children with natural children of adoptive parents is not prohibited unless they relate to each other in a prohibited degree. In short, adoption does not create a new legal relationship which did not exist before adoption.Advocate Qaisar Farooq. According to the NADRA (National Database and Registration Authority) Registration procedure, the parentage of the adopted child with known parentage must be entered as that of natural/biological parents, whereas parentage of the children with unknown parentage can be entered with some fictitious names to avoid social stigmas but there must be evidence provided by the adoptive parents that the child is with unknown parentage to avoid any confusion or controversy over the rights or duties of the adopted child as a biological child. Until now no law in Pakistan addresses the issue of adoption. However, the process of adoption is carried out in the name of custody of the person of the child under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The adoptive parents apply to the court under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and in the case of a child with known parentage, make the biological parents of the child as respondent who usually give consenting statement in favour of the applicant, adoptive parent. Adoption has not been defined nor is recognized under the Succession Act, of 1925. Succession to the movable and immovable property of any intestate Pakistani is governed under the laws of Pakistan in terms of section 5 of the Succession Act, 1925. Degree of kindred is computed in the manner set out in the Schedule 1 to the Succession Act, 1925. The adopted child does not find any mention in the category of kindred upon whom the property of intestate upon his death may devolve. According to the succession laid down under the Succession Act, 1925, an adopted child is not an heir or kindred entitled upon intestacy to inherit the estate of his adoptive parent. Adoption under 'Muslim Law' does not create any kindred relationship between the adopted child and adoptive parent whosoever.

Writ Petition-Criminal Proceedings-Detention/Habeas
12826-23
MST. ARZU VS
DPO ETC
Mr. Justice Sadiq Mahmud Khurram
11-09-2023
2023 LHC 7114.

16/01/2026

2024 SCMR 1984
PLJ 2024 SC 845

VVVVI. MUST READ JUDGEMENT.
خانگی تقسیم (family settlement) کے موضوع پر انتہائی معلوماتی فیصلہ جس میں اس موضوع پر پاکستان، انڈیا اور ا نگلینڈ وغیرہ کے تمام قدیم ترین اور تازہ ترین فیصلہ جات کا حوالہ دیکر
خانگی تقسیم (family settlement) کے اصول وضوابط مرتب کیے گیے ہیں
General impact and significance of family settlement. .................
A family settlement involves members of the same family striving to resolve their differences and disputes to achieve lasting resolution. Through these arrangements, family members aim to bring about harmony and goodwill, settling conflicting claims or disputed titles to promote peace within the family. Courts recognise the special significance of family arrangements(Naeem) and uphold them when made in good faith. This principle has been developed by courts over a long period of time to discourage litigation driven by greed, particularly in cases involving the distribution of family estates, such as the one being considered here.

The principles governing family settlement or arrangements that may be deducted from the above referred survey of case law and the law books may be outlined in the following form:

(i) The family settlement has to be genuine, bona fide and must aim to resolve family disputes and conflicting claims by ensuring a fair and equitable distribution or allocation of properties among all family members.

(ii) When an agreement is entered into to preserve the honour of a family and is reasonable, the Court will seize any justifiable reason to enforce the agreement and promote peace within the family.

(iii) The settlement must be made willingly and should not be influenced by fraud, social or familial pressure, and undue influence.

(iv) Like an oral contract, family settlements may well also be oral and if it is, no registration of the settlement is necessary. is

(v) It is well established that registration of a family settlement is required only if the terms of the settlement are put into writing. However, it a important to distinguish between a document that includes the terms and details of family settlement and a simple memorandum created after the arrangement has been made, intended either for record purposes or for informing the Court to effect necessary mutation. In such cases, the memorandum does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable property and, therefore, does not fall under the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908 making it not subject to compulsory registration.

(vi) In cases where the parties are not inclined to divide property permanently, they cannot be forced to do so. The decision to distribute the property is based on their own preferences, and it is considered a personal and family matter. In such situations, there is no requirement for registering such an agreement.

(vii) The members involved in the family settlement must have a pre-existing title, claim, or interest, even a potential claim, in the property that is recognised by all parties to the settlement. If one party lacks a title but, under the arrangement, another party relinquishes all claims or titles in favour of that person and acknowledges them as the sole owner, a preexisting title will be assumed. Consequently, the family arrangement will be upheld, and the Courts will readily endorse it.

(viii) A genuine and bona fide family settlement can resolve disputes, whether current or potential, even if they do not involve legal claims. As long as the arrangement is fair and equitable, it is final and binding on all parties involved.

(ix) Courts tend to favour maintaining the family arrangement rather than disturbing it on technical or trivial grounds. Where the Courts find that the family arrangement suffers from a legal deficiency or a formal defect, the principle of estoppel is invoked and applied to turn down the plea of the person who, being a party to family arrangement, seeks to set aside a settled dispute, and claims to revoke the family arrangement under which he himself has received some material benefits.

C.A.197-L/2019
Bashir Ahmed (deceased) through his L.Rs., etc v. Nazir Ahmad, etc.

16/01/2026

1 کورٹ 100 مجرموں کو رہا کر دے، مگر ایک بے گناہ کو سزا نہ دے۔
نقشہ موقع بلاسکیل اور نقشہ موقع باسکیل میں تضاد کی صورت میں پراسیکیوشن کیس مشکوک تصور ہو گا۔
(2017 YLR 1972).
اگر نقشہ موقع سے متعلق جرح نہ کی جاۓ، تو نقشہ موقع درست تسلیم ہو گا۔اپیل ڈسمس
(2014 YLR 500).
نقشہ موقع کے مطابق، جہاں پر مدعی اور گواہان کی موجودگی دکھائی گئی تھی، ملزمان وہاں سے نظر نہ آ رہے تھے۔
(2020 YLR 1522).
اگر نقشہ موقع میں مدعی کی موجودگی نہ دکھائی گئی ہو، تو یہ پراسیکیوشن کیس کو سپورٹ نہ کرے گا ۔
(2015 PCrLJ 1023)
نقشہ موقع میں گواہان وجٹکر کی موجودگی نہ دکھائی جاۓ تو پراسیکیوشن کیس مشکوک تصور ہو گا۔
(2013 YLR 1091)
p: دوران آپریشن ڈاکٹر کی غفلت سے تولیہ پیٹ کے اندر رہ گیا، دعویٰ ہرجانہ ڈگری ہوا.
2002 CLC 96.
2001 CLC 875.
ایشو فریم کرنے اور شہادت گواہان قلمبند کرنے سے قبل دعویٰ ہرجانہ، زیرِ آرڈر 7 رول 11 ض د خارج نہیں ہو گا.
2021 MLD 354.
محض کسی کے خلاف FIR درج کروانے کی بناء پر Malacious Prosecution کا اطلاق نہ ہو گا،بلکہ اس کے لئے مدعا علیہ کی بد نیتی کا ثابت کرنا ضروری ہے.
PLD 2017 Bal 85.
مریضوں کے معاملے میں ڈاکٹرز اپنی غفلت اور لاپرواہی کی صورت میں ہرجانہ ادا کرنے کے پابند ہوں گے.
1996 CLC 1440.
PLD 1991 SC 699.
گاڑی کا مالک صرف اسی صورت میں ہرجانہ ادا کرنے کا پابند ہو گا، جب کہ ڈرائیور کے پاس ڈرائیونگ لائسنس نہ ہو گا.
1995 CLC 83.
1992 CLC 185.
[11/20,: زبانی معاہدہ بیعہ کی بناء پر دعویٰ تعمیل مختص میں سٹے کنفرم نہ ہو گا۔
(2020 YLR 2239).
اگر مدعا علیہ، مدعی کی پیش کردہ کسی دستاویز کو، درست تسلیم نہ کرے، تو اس بناء پر سٹے نہ ہو گا.
(2020 YLR 2135).
اگر کسی Claim کو ثابت کرنے کیلئے، شہادت لکھنا ضروری ہو، تو اسے Prima facie کیس نہ کہا جا سکتا ہے ۔
(2020 YLR 2179).
فریقین میں سابقہ زیر سماعت دعویٰ جات کو چھپانے والا، حکم امنتاعی کا حق دار نہ ہو گا
(2019 YLR 815).
کسی کی زمین پر سے Trespasser کو کسی قسم کا کوئی قانونی تحفظ نہ دیا جا سکتا ہے ۔
(2014 CLC 3.