A judge of the District Court in Lahore ordered the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to proceed under the law if a conscious crime was made after receiving the opinion of the Play Board in a petition that is looking for a FIR against former President Dr. Arif Alvi about his supposed comments blasphemous in a video that circulated on social networks.
However, the additional judge of the District and the Shafqat Shahbaz Raja sessions eliminated the petition, presented by Shehzada Adnan through the Mudassir Chaudhry lawyer, holding that former President Alvi had used an alleged blasphemous language in a video circulated on the Internet.
The FIA, in its response to the petition, declared that a regular investigation had been registered and marked to Abdul Basit, sub -inspector of the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (Nccia). The petitioner joined the investigation procedures and presented evidence regarding his complaint.
The subject video of former President Alvi had been sent to the ulema Board for a Fatwa, and the procedures would end exclusively by merit after receiving the response from the Board. The FIA said the investigation officer was obliged to continue after receiving the opinion of the Play Board.
The petitioner’s lawyer opposed the position of the FIA, arguing that the Fatwa of Ulema had no relevance for the FIR registration. In addition, he argued that not everything in the video clip was audible.
However, Judge Raja eliminated the petition, ordering the FIA to conclude the procedure after receiving the response from the Play Board and, if a conscious crime was made, to proceed under the law.
Previously, another court had dismissed the petition because the petitioner had approached an inappropriate forum. That court pointed out that the Government had established the NCCIA to deal with matters related to social networks. Therefore, the petitioner could approach the NCCIA for the repair of his complaint.
Previously, the petitioner had approached the police (an inappropriate forum) for the repair of his complaint.
After that, the petitioner again approached the district and the session court that sought a FIR one against Dr. Alvi.
