PESHAWAR, July 6: Disposing of a writ petition, a division bench of the Peshawar High Court on Friday quashed an FIR registered against an inspector of the intelligence bureau, charged with taking bribe from a Canadian national of Arab origin.
The bench comprising Justice Abdur Rauf Lughmani and Justice Qazi Ahsanullah Qureshi recorded statement of the SHO of the concerned police station, who stated that they had received directives from the departmental head of the petitioner not to pursue the case.
The petitioner, Habibullah Khan, had filed the petition after an FIR was registered against him at East Cantt Police Station on the complaint of the administration officer of IB, Raees Khan two years ago.
The respondents, in the petition were ex-joint director-general of IB, NWFP, Malik Naveed, administration officer of IB, Raees Khan and SHO of East Cantt Police Station.
The FIR was registered under section 161/165/165-A/420 of Pakistan Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The complainant had stated that on July 17, 2000, the petitioner, Habibullah was posted at Pakistan-Afghan border at Torkham. He illegally detained, Abdur Rehman, a Canadian national of Arab origin, and asked him to pay him Rs30,000 for his release.
The complainant alleged that the detainee paid him Rs1,400 for his release. However, the petitioner retained his passport asking him to pay the remaining amount later.
It was alleged that later on he asked one of his agents to receive the money from Abdur Rehman.
Advocate Abdul Samad Khan appeared for the petitioner and contended that the IB was a federal agency and local police had no jurisdiction to register an FIR against the petitioner.
He said that it was the FIA’s jurisdiction to look into this case. The counsel contended that according to the complainant the occurrence took place at Torkham, which was in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata), out of the territorial jurisdiction of the police.
The SHO of East Cantt Police Station, who was summoned by the court and was a respondent, stated that the case was registered two years ago and now the director-general of the IB had informed them that they were not interested in pursuing it.
