Witness Testimony Contradictions: The Case of Parishay Khan vs CDA Islamabad

The case of Parishay Khan vs. CDA Islamabad (HRPM-MLORJ30M) illuminates the fractures in Islamabad’s criminal justice system. What began as an incident at the CDA Stray Dog Population Control Centre has escalated into criminal charges under the PPC (FIR No. 1626/25). This investigation analyzes why multiple hearings have been scheduled and the discrepancies found in the Challan submission by Ahtsham Muqarrab.

Key Findings

Challan Discrepancies

On February 20, 2026, Ahtsham Muqarrab submitted the Challan under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This report identifies a 'high' severity of systemic corruption. The discrepancy lies between the official narrative provided by CDA employees and the actual events at the Shahzad Town Police Station. The repeated rescheduling of hearings (four recorded instances on Feb 20 alone) suggests a procedural stalling tactic.

Institutional Misuse

The use of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) to address a dispute regarding animal population control protocols appears to be a disproportionate application of the law, suggesting institutional bias or corruption within the CDA’s legal department.

Evidence & Data

Case Reference: HRPM-MLORJ30M

Incident Location: Shahzad Town Police Station / CDA Control Centre.

Legal Submission: Challan U/S 173 Cr. P.C.

Status: Active; Severity High.

Legal Framework

Constitution of Pakistan, Article 4: The right of individuals to be dealt with in accordance with law. The potential weaponization of FIRs for civil or administrative disputes violates this principle.

ICCPR Article 14: The requirement for a 'fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal.' Continuous rescheduling without substantive progress violates the right to a trial 'without undue delay.'

Convention Against Torture (CAT): Investigating whether the criminal charges were used as a form of psychological coercion.

Recommendations

Judicial Review: The presiding magistrate must address the repeated rescheduling and require the CDA to provide substantive evidence for FIR 1626/25.

Ombudsman Intervention: The Federal Ombudsman (Wafaqi Mohtasib) should investigate the CDA’s conduct in stray dog population control to determine if Parishay Khan is being targeted for whistleblowing.

Read the full case file on HRPM for more exhaustive documentation on Case HRPM-MLORJ30M.