The Lahore High Court on Thursday again sought a reply from the inspector general of police by September 12 to a petition challenging an FIR against him and refusal of a senior superintendent of police (SSP) to change the investigation officer in the case.
On Thursday, Justice Sheikh Najamul Hassan adjourned the hearing after an assistant advocate general sought more time to bring the SSP concerned to court with the facts of the case.
The petitioner’s counsel, Muhammad Azhar Siddique, opposed the adjournment, saying it was common practice for the police to ignore court summons.
The petition was filed by Naseeb Ahmad Safi, who was named accused in an FIR registered at Ichhra police station under Section 489-F (cheque dishonour) of the Pakistan Penal Code. He said that the complainant had stolen his cheque and put a fake signature on it.
He said the case had been registered against him in violation of the capital city police officer’s (CCPO) directions to police officers to hear both parties before lodging a case under the said Section.
He alleged that the complainant, Younis Ali, had close links with police officers. He accused Model Town SSP (investigation) Shoaib Khurran Janbaz of trying to get the disputed money from Safi by threatening and harassing him.
He said that a private handwriting expert had verified that the signature on the cheque was not his.
He said that his application seeking to change the investigation officer in the case was dismissed by SSP Shoaib Khurran, also a member of the board, without reason. He said that his client had been moving petitions in the Police Department, but to no avail.
Meanwhile, in a related development, the same court also directed the CCPO to submit a reply and comments on the same petition seeking registration of case against police officers for entering his house without obtaining search warrants from a court.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 26th, 2011.
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ