Neighbourly disagreement?: Top lawyer booked for ‘threatening’ SC judge

Police refuse to share nature of threats.


Obaid Abbasi October 08, 2013
Investigation Officer Saleem Raza said the complainant did not provide the number from which the messages were allegedly delivered to Justice Khwaja’s cell-phone. PHOTO: FILE

ISLAMABAD:


The capital police on Tuesday registered a first information report (FIR) against senior Supreme Court (SC) lawyer Salman Akram Raja for allegedly sending threatening messages to Justice Jawad S Khawaja, a senior SC judge.


The FIR against Raja was registered under section 25-D of the Telegraph Act for allegedly sending threatening messages to Justice Khawaja around a month ago, said the investigation officer of Secretariat police.

According to the police, SC Assistant Registrar Ijaz Ahmed filed a complaint but he did not provide details of the threatening messages.

Investigation Officer Saleem Raza said the complainant did not provide the number from which the messages were allegedly delivered to Justice Khwaja’s cell-phone. When asked for further details, Raza replied that the complainant has yet to provide details of cell numbers. “I will investigate it from every angle thoroughly but for now a case has been registered against Raja,” he added.

SC Registrat Dr Faqir Hussain, when contacted, said he would share details of the case on Wednesday. “I am not in a position to share the details of the case and will inform you tomorrow,” he said. Repeated attempts were made to contact Raja but he was not available for comment.

A few months ago, a controversy arose on the social media website Twitter when Raja made comments alluding that Justice Khwaja’s wife had opened a salon in Lahore’s Defence Housing Society, where Raja also resides. Raja had tweeted on June 23 this year,
https://twitter.com/salmanAraja/status/348519744904777728

Published in The Express Tribune, October 9th, 2013.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ