ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court on Monday restrained the trial court from proceeding in a case related to the First Information Report (FIR) registered against a special assistant to the chief minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and a director along with some officials of the province’s Anti-Corruption Establishment (ACE) involved in a smear campaign against a judge in Islamabad.

They were accused of scandalising Special Judge Central Humayun Dilawar after the ACE secured arrest warrants against him and his family in connection with a land dispute case in their native town of Bannu.

The FIA registered the case against retired Brig Mussadiq Abbasi, ACE KP officials and a vlogger for allegedly attempting to discredit Judge Dilawar, who had previously convicted former prime minister Imran Khan on the complaint of the Election Commission of Pakistan for concealing details of Toshakhana gifts in his assets declaration The FIR followed a September 9, 2024, case filed by the ACE against Judge Dilawar and his family in a land dispute case, leading to warrants issued by a judicial magistrate the same day.

Records show Judge Dilawar’s family acquired a piece of land in Bannu in 1970 and work on a housing project on the land legally progressed under the PTI government.

However, after former prime minister Imran Khan was convicted by Judge Dilawar in the Toshakhana case, the family reportedly faced intimidation, which allegedly intensified under the PTI’s administration following the February 8 elections.

IHC Justice Babar Sattar while hearing a petition filed by ACE Director Siddeeq Anjum observed prima facie abuse of authority in the registration of the FIR as his counsel Ali Azim Afridi claimed it as retaliation.

Mr Anjum challenged the FIR, asserting that it was filed in retaliation for an earlier case registered against the complainant and his family.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the FIR lacked legal grounds and violated procedural requirements under the law.

The counsel said Section 20 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca) 2016 had been struck down by court in February 2023. As such, charges under this section were legally invalid.

It was argued that Section 24 of Peca, which pertains to cyber-stalking, did not apply as the essential elements of the offence were absent. No allegation was made of electronic means being used to harm the complainant.

Under Section 43 of Peca, the alleged offences were non-cognizable, requiring prior permission from a magistrate. This procedural requirement was reportedly ignored.

A complaint under Section 505 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) can only be filed by the federal or a provincial government, which was not done.

The petitioner’s counsel also claimed that the FIA’s actions amounted to a “colorable exercise of jurisdiction,” targeting a law enforcement officer discharging official duties in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

The court directed the FIA director general to submit all relevant documents and a report explaining the inquiry’s authorisation and subsequent actions.

Justice Sattar noted the possibility of misuse of authority and directed the trial court to halt proceedings until the matter is resolved. The next hearing was scheduled for February 10.

Published in Dawn, January 28th, 2025