Ritchie approaches IHC against a lower court order

TERENCE J SIGAMONY

ISLAMABAD: Cynthia D Ritchie, who is currently residing in Pakistan, on Thursday, approached the Islamabad High Court (IHC) against a lower court’s order to register FIR against her.

In her petition, the US blogger challenged the Justice of Peace, Islamabad’s decision in which it had directed the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to proceed with registration of FIR against her.

She moved the court through her counsel, Imran Feroze Malik Advocate, and cited Justice of Peace Islamabad, Muhammad Shakeel Abbasi, the FIA Crime Wing Islamabad, Salman Khan Incharge Cyber Crime Wing Islamabad, and Chairman Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) as respondents.

The petitioner stated that Shakeel Abbasi moved an application before Salman Khan, Incharge Cyber Crime Wing Islamabad, wherein it was contended that the present petitioner passed some defamatory remarks about the leadership of Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), giving rise to a cyber crime, hence requested registration of FIR.

She added that upon such application, inquiry was conducted, and it was found by the FIA authorities that Abbasi had no locus standi to file an instant application, therefore, authorities refused to register the FIR.

Cynthia maintained that after visualizing, so-called inaction on the part of the FIA Cyber Crime Wing, application was referred before the Justice of Peace, who sought report from respondents including the FIA and the PTA, the report was submitted wherein contention of Abbasi was discarded on the ground of locus standi as he was not an aggrieved person within the meaning of Prevention of Cyber Crime Act 2016 but even then the Justice of Peace directed the FIA to proceed with registration of FIR “illegally and unlawfully”, whose order is liable to be set aside.

She maintained, “Petitioner has committed no offence, which clearly depicts from the report submitted by Respondent No 2 after evaluating the entire material and contention of independent witnesses.”

Therefore, she prayed to the court that under these circumstances, the said order dated June 15 passed by the Respondent No 1, may graciously be set aside and may kindly be declared “illegal and unlawful” in the best interest of justice.