MUNIR AHMAD BHATTI vs DIRECTOR, FIA CYBER CRIME WING, LAHORE S — 2022 PLD 664 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUNIR AHMAD BHATTI VS DIRECTOR, FIA CYBER CRIME WING, LAHORE S. 22-a(6)---Federal Investigation agency act, 1974 (VIII of 1975), S.5---Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Expression "the police authorities"---applicability---Members of Federal Investigation agency have been invested under S.5(1) of Federal Investigation agency act, 1974 with all powers that provincial police have in relation to search, arrest of person and seizure of property and investigation of offences---Such member, subject to any order of Federal Government, may exercise them throughout the country---Members of Federal Investigating agency, not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector, are empowered under S.5(2) of Federal Investigation agency act, 1974 to exercise any of the powers of an officer in-charge of a police station for the purposes of any inquiry or investigation under Federal Investigation agency act, 1974---Federal Investigation agency is fully covered by the expression "the police authorities" occurring in S.22-a(6), Cr.P.C. and amenable to the jurisdiction of the Ex-officio Justice of Peace. Rr.3 & 4---Prevention of Electronic Crimes act (XL of 2016), S. 20---Cyber crime---Offences against dignity of natural person---Commencement of action---Procedure---Registration of FIR is not a condition precedent for commencement of investigation---Cyber crimes required some preliminary inquiry to justify prosecution of accused. Rr.3 & 4---Prevention of Electronic Crimes act (XL of 2016), Ss.20 & 43---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 22-a, 22-B & 154---Constitution of Pakistan, art. 199---Constitutional petition---Initiation of action by Federal Investigation agency---Cyber crime---Non-cognizable and compoundable offence---Petitioner was aggrieved of dismissal of his application by Ex-officio Justice of Peace declining direction to Federal Investigation agency for registration of FIR---Validity---Provision of R. 7(5) of Federal Investigation agency (Inquiries and Investigations) Rules, 2002 ordained that non-cognizable offences were to be dealt with according to S.155, Cr.P.C., and permission of competent Court was necessary for investigation---Some preliminary inquiry was permissible even in such category of cases---allegation levelled by petitioner against respondent attracted S.20 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes act, 2002, which was a non-cognizable and compoundable offence in terms of S.43 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes act, 2002---Federal Investigating agency initiated inquiry on the complaint of petitioner which was pending---Ex-officio Justice of Peace rightly directed Inquiry Officer to conclude it expeditiously and asked the parties to wait for its outcome---alleged offence was non-cognizable and FIR could not be ordered to be registered in any eventuality---High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace, as petitioner failed to point out any legal infirmity in order---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. S. 154---Registration of case---Preliminary inquiry---Scope---Provision of S. 154, Cr.P.C. does not permit police officer to hold a preliminary inquiry before it to ascertain whether information communicated to him is authentic.

MUNIR AHMAD BHATTI vs DIRECTOR, FIA CYBER CRIME WING, LAHORE S — 2022 PLD 664 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 PLD