The Stray Dog Incident: Red Flags and Procedural Failures in Parishay Khan v. CDA

The criminal trial against Parishay Khan (HRPM-MLORJ30M), stemming from the CDA Stray Dog Population Control Centre incident, presents a textbook case of investigative red flags. This report analyzes the submission of the Challan U/S 173 Cr. P.C by Ahtsham Muqarrab and its implications for justice in Islamabad.

Key Findings

Rapid Criminalization: The speed at which FIR 1626/25 was filed at the Shahzad Town Police Station suggests a pre-determined outcome rather than an objective investigation into the CDA incident.

Opaque Procedures: There is a lack of documented evidence regarding the specific 'harm' caused by Khan, contrasting with the systemic failure of the CDA centre itself.

Judicial Repetition: The scheduling of multiple hearings on the same date (February 20, 2026) suggests procedural irregularities in the Islamabad High Court's lower jurisdictions.

Evidence & Data

The HRPM platform notes that the primary driver for this case was an incident at the Population Control Centre. However, the 'Challan' submitted lacks robust forensic or testimonial support, relying instead on institutional hearsay from Capital Development Authority (CDA) officials who may be protecting themselves from administrative negligence charges.

Legal Framework

CrPC Section 173: The requirements for a police report (Challan) and its validity.

PPC Provisions: Exploring the specific criminal charges levied against Khan for animal welfare-related activism.

ICCPR Article 14: The right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal.

Recommendations

A stay on the criminal proceedings is warranted until an independent audit of the CDA's incident records is completed. Read the full case file on HRPM.