IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 47 OF 2016 & 
C.M.A. NO. 5424 OF 2016 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 04.11.2015 
passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in CP No. 
D-3065/2015) 
 
1. 
Salman Abro  
 
 
 
 
(In CP 47/2016) 
 
2. 
Application for impleadment by  
Zeeshan Mustafa Lashari 
 
 
(In CMA 5424/2016) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… Petitioner/Applicant 
VERSUS 
Government of Sindh and others 
 
 
(In CP 47/2016) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Abro, father of the 
petitioner 
 
For the State: 
 
Mr. Zafar Ahmed Khan, Addl. P.G. Sindh 
 
For the Respondents (2): Mr. Faisal Siddiqui, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(Also for applicant in CMA No. 5424/2016) 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
09.02.2021 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.-  
 
Civil Petition No. 47/2016  
 
 
Through this petition under Article 185(3) of the 
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has 
called in question the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi 
whereby the Constitutional Petition filed by him was dismissed and 
the order of the learned Trial Court dated 29.04.2015 dismissing his 
private complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. was upheld.  
2. 
 
Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that the petitioner 
is facing trial in case registered vide FIR No. 235/2014 under Sections 
302, 324, 427, 34 PPC read with Section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act, at 
Police Station Darakshan, Karachi, for the alleged murder of one 
Suleman Mustafa Lashari. According to the FIR, on the fateful day and 
time, the complainant was sitting in his house when petitioner along 
with others while armed with firearms came at the gate of their 
Civil Petition No. 279-P/2015 
2
bungalow and started firing. Due to the firing, their guard namely 
Ghulam Ali Bugti and his brother Suleman Mustafa Lashari sustained 
injuries. The complainant party while exercising right of self defence 
fired at the assailant due to which petitioner also received injuries. The 
brother of the complainant Suleman Mustafa and his guard were 
evacuated to hospital but his brother succumbed to the injuries. Later it 
was found that one of the assailants also lost his life during the 
occurrence. The motive behind the occurrence was that the petitioner 
and the deceased had some hostility during their friendship, which 
persuaded the petitioner to launch attack resulting into death of the 
deceased. After registration of the aforesaid crime report, one Mansoor 
Ali filed an application under Section 22-A & 22-B Cr.P.C before the 
Justice of Peace, Karachi South for registration of counter version, but 
the same was dismissed vide order dated 10.05.2014. He assailed the 
order of Justice of Peace before the High Court of Sindh by filing 
Criminal Misc. Application No. 59/2014, which also met the same fate 
vide order dated 03.09.2014. The order of the High Court was 
challenged before this Court through Criminal Petition No. 101-K/2014, 
which was ultimately withdrawn and the same was disposed of 
accordingly vide order dated 06.02.2015. It is strange enough that in 
the second round of litigation, the petitioner Salman Abro filed private 
complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C before the learned Trial Court for 
recording of counter version under Sections 302, 324, 427, 201, 149 
PPC read with Sections 6/7 of the Anti Terrorism Act. The learned Trial 
Court after recording the preliminary statements and while inquiring 
into the matter dismissed the private complaint vide order dated 
29.04.2015 on the ground that there does not exist any reasonable 
ground for issuance of process against the proposed accused in the 
complaint lodged by the petitioner. Being dissatisfied with the order of 
the learned Trial Court, the petitioner filed Constitutional Petition No. D-
3065/2015 before the learned High Court of Sindh, Karachi, but it has 
been dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 04.11.2015. Hence, 
this petition seeking leave to appeal.  
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in attendance. 
According to the father of the petitioner, learned counsel is indisposed. 
We have noticed that on the last two dates of hearing, the learned 
counsel for the petitioner had sent applications for adjournment on 
different grounds. Since, a short point is involved and as the matter is 
Civil Petition No. 279-P/2015 
3
lingering on since 2016, we have decided to proceed with the matter on 
merits. Mr. Ghulam Sarwar, father of the petitioner, inter alia, 
contended that one of his guards has been killed by the complainant 
party of the FIR and his son i.e. the petitioner has received serious 
injuries, which clearly shows that the complainant party was the 
aggressor but the learned courts below have not taken this aspect of 
the matter into consideration and refused to register the counter 
version of the petitioner’s side, which resulted into grave miscarriage of 
justice; that the petitioner had fired in self defence due to which 
deceased Suleman Mustafa lost his life. He lastly contended that the 
complainant party is not appearing before the Trial Court and 
deliberately delaying the matter.  
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer and learned 
counsel for the respondent No. 2 have defended the impugned 
judgment. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has inter alia 
contended that the matter is at the stage of final arguments; that the 
plea of petitioner for registering his counter version was also declined 
in the earlier round of litigation, which means it had attained finality, 
therefore, seeking the same relief in the second round amounts to 
mockery of law.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have 
perused the available record.  
6. 
 
A bare perusal of the record shows that in the first round 
of litigation, a stranger namely Mansoor Ali had tried to lodge counter 
version of the occurrence, which was declined up to the High Court. 
Even the petition before this Court filed by the said Mansoor Ali was 
dismissed as withdrawn. This clearly reflects that the attempt made 
by the said Mansoor Ali on behalf of the petitioner has already 
attained finality. Surprisingly, the said Mansoor Ali was neither a 
witness of the occurrence nor he had any nexus with the incident, 
therefore, there was no compelling reason for him to file the counter 
version on behalf of the petitioner. In the second round of litigation, the 
petitioner himself opted to file private complaint which has been 
dismissed by the learned courts below. The learned High Court in the 
impugned judgment has observed that the petitioner has not 
approached the court with clean hands, but with nefarious intent as 
the counter version of the petitioner had already been investigated by 
the police while following all legal requirements. It was further 
Civil Petition No. 279-P/2015 
4
observed that the only purpose to launch counter version is to create a 
strong defence that too with a delay of one year and the same could be 
termed as an afterthought and as such it does not create a sound 
foundation in the given circumstances. After evaluating all facts and 
circumstances, we could not persuade ourselves to come to a different 
conclusion than what has been arrived at by the High Court. We have 
been informed that the evidence has already been recorded and the 
trial is at the verge of final arguments. We are aware of the fact that at 
this stage any observation qua the merits of the case would certainly 
prejudice the case of either of the parties and the same would not be in 
the interest of safe administration of criminal justice. The grounds 
urged by the petitioner before us can safely be agitated before the 
learned Trial Court in the light of the evidence led by either of the 
parties.  
7. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we find no reason to 
interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned High Court. 
This petition having no merit is accordingly dismissed and leave to 
appeal is refused.  
 
C.M.A. No. 5424 OF 2016  
8. 
 
Through this application, the complainant of the FIR seeks 
to be impleaded as necessary party in Civil Petition No. 47/2016. We 
have noted that this Court vide order dated 20.07.2016 had directed 
that the complainant be arrayed as respondent in the petition, which 
was accordingly done and he was arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the 
main petition. In this view of the matter and since the main petition has 
been dismissed, this CMA has become infructuous and is disposed of 
accordingly.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the  
9th of February, 2021 
Not Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
