From ‘Phoonkni’ to professors: 2 FIRs echo LHC CJ’s ‘Makheyan’ remark

The development comes a day after the Chief Justice summoned the Inspector General of Punjab Police after an SP appearing before the court reportedly failed to read his own FIR

LAHORE: Two FIRs registered on September 8, 2026, one involving an elderly woman in Narowal and the other naming four Punjab University professors in Lahore, have drawn fresh attention to Lahore High Court Chief Justice Aalia Neelum’s recent criticism of the manner in which FIRs are being drafted and presented before courts.

The development comes a day after the Chief Justice summoned the Inspector General of Punjab Police after an SP appearing before the court reportedly failed to read his own FIR. During the hearing, Justice Aalia Neelum expressed concern over the language and readability of police documents, observing that FIRs appeared difficult to understand and describing them metaphorically as being full of “flies”.

Minute Mirror has reviewed copies of two FIRs registered on September 8 and found that both contain cases involving circumstances that have raised questions about the drafting and use of criminal cases.

The first case relates to FIR No. 5106 registered at Sadar Shakargarh. The FIR, dated September 8, was registered under several provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, including sections 337-A1, 337-L2, 354, 148 and 149.

According to the FIR copy reviewed by Minute Mirror, the case includes a cross-version involving the elderly mother of a journalist in Narowal. One of the allegations recorded in the police version states that she was holding a traditional kitchen implement commonly known as a phoonkni, used to blow air into a stove.

The circumstances surrounding the registration of the case, and whether the allegations were sufficient to justify the sections invoked, remain matters for the relevant authorities and courts to determine.

The second FIR, No. 1481/26, was registered at Muslim Town Police Station, Lahore, at 8:09pm on September 8. It invokes Section 6 of the Punjab Sound Systems (Regulation) Act 2015 along with several provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, including sections 506-II, 148, 149, 337-F1, 337-A1, 337-L2 and 354.

According to the FIR copy reviewed by Minute Mirror, the case originated from an incident near the Punjab University Campus Bridge at Muslim Town Mor on September 7. The police version states that the SHO, accompanied by ASI Shabbir, heard sound coming from a rally while on patrol.

Four Punjab University professors — Dr Kamran Abid, Dr Sardar Asghar, Dr Majid Ali and Dr Hafiz Mughis Bhatti — were subsequently named in the FIR.

The document alleges that the professors were using a small sound system or microphone during the gathering without the required permission. The professors’ side and the university’s position would be necessary to independently establish the circumstances behind the incident and the purpose for which the equipment was being used.

Questions have also been raised over the scale of the police action in the matter, particularly because the FIR includes provisions relating to rioting, unlawful assembly, criminal intimidation and other offences in addition to the sound-system law.

The case has consequently triggered debate over whether disputes involving university administration or public gatherings should escalate into criminal proceedings and whether the sections invoked accurately reflect the alleged conduct.

The FIRs have gained significance because they emerged immediately before the LHC Chief Justice’s remarks about the quality and comprehensibility of police FIRs. The juxtaposition has prompted questions about police drafting practices, the application of penal provisions and the threshold for converting disputes into criminal cases.

The matter also raises a broader institutional question: whether police documents should clearly and proportionately reflect the alleged conduct so that courts can readily understand the factual basis of a case.

Minute Mirror has approached the relevant authorities for their position regarding both FIRs and the circumstances in which the cited provisions were invoked.

The cases remain subject to investigation and judicial determination, and the registration of an FIR does not by itself establish the guilt of any accused person.