KARACHI: Rejecting an application seeking the addition of murder and terrorism charges, a judicial magistrate accepted the charge sheet in the Gul Plaza fire case on Wednesday, in which the police blamed the building management’s “negligence”.

The deadly inferno, which erupted on the night of January 17 at the shopping mall and took nearly two days to be fully extinguished, had claimed at least 73 lives and left over 1,100 shops in ruins.

Judicial Magistrate (South) Aasim Aslam pronounced his order on Wednesday, in which he accepted the final charge sheet filed by the second investigating officer of the case.

Accepting the charge sheet, the judge also dismissed the application filed by five shop owners in which they sought to include charges of murder and terrorism in the FIR.

Accepts final charge sheet against four members of management committee, owner of flower shop and his 11-year-old son

Earlier, the IO had named the management of Gul Plaza and a shopkeeper and his underage son as accused and exonerated the Sindh Building Control Authority, Fire Brigade, Rescue 1122, Civil Defence and district administration from any negligence on their part in the charge sheet.

The IO chargesheeted four members of Gul Plaza Management Committee — Tanveer Pasta, Amar Ismail, Muhammad Ramazan and Muhammad Ameen — and the owner of an artificial flower shop, Naimatullah, and his over 11-year-old son Huzaifa in the case.

The IO listed 87 prosecution witnesses in the case and submitted that criminal negligence and carelessness were established against the persons named as accused in the investigation report and charged them for offences under Section 322 (manslaughter), 377-H (i) (punishment for hurt by rash or negligent act), 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc.), 427 (mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees) and 285 (negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter) of the Pakistan Penal Code.

Initially, the police had filed a charge sheet in July, listing the same set of persons as accused, but the court had rejected the same and ordered a thorough and satisfactory investigation by a Deputy Superintendent of Police.

Published in Dawn, October 29th, 2026