ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday dismissed a petition seeking directions to the police to register a second FIR of the murder of Additional District and Sessions Judge (ADSJ) Malik Rafaqat Awan.

Justice Aamer Farooq had reserved the verdict on June 22 after hearing arguments from the lawyer of petitioner Safdar Hussain, the brother of the late judge, and the counsel for the federal government.

Judge Rafaqat Awan was among 11 people killed in the March 3, 2014, attack on the district courts in Islamabad.

The IHC declared that the petition was not maintainable, adding: “The registration of a second FIR of the same incident is not permissible under the law.” The court observed that the second FIR of an incident can only be registered if new facts emerged in the case. “In the instant case, the matter was thoroughly investigated and the facts presented by the petitioner did not bring any new version of the incident.” The petitioner has an alternative remedy available to seek relief. “For ongoing reason, the petition is dismissed,” said the order.

Additional District and Sessions Judge Malik Rafaqat Awan was among 11 people killed in district court attack on March 3, 2014

The petitioner claimed that the terrorist attack on the district courts on March 3, 2014, was aimed at covering up the murder of his brother. He said the attack was planned after his brother Rafaqat Awan dismissed an application filed by Lal Masjid cleric Abdul Rasheed Ghazi’s son for the registration of a case against former president Pervez Musharraf. The rejection of the application, he added, angered suspects Babar Hussain, the gunman of the judge, and court officials Anees Ahmed and Khalid Noon.

Babar is facing trial while the other two have been exonerated by the police. During the course of arguments, the petitioner’s counsel argued that their client did not believe the terrorists shot the judge and there was no legal bar on the authorities to register a second FIR if there was supporting evidence. They said if the judge was killed by the terrorists in his chamber, how were Ahmed and Khalid Noon able to escape.

The charge-sheet also stated that the circumstances inside the chamber were different but the police did not register the second FIR, they added.

Hadiya Aziz, the standing counsel for the federal government, however, said the petitioner’s counsel kept criticising the investigation, yet they relied upon it. She said Ahmed and Noon had already recorded their statements with the police and eight witnesses examined by the trial court so far.

The counsel pointed out that the victim’s family had come forward after a delay of six months. “What would be the status of all the prosecution witnesses who have been examined so far and what relief the other aggrieved people would get from the second FIR.”

She said that as an alternative remedy, the contents of the petitioner’s claims can be accommodated in the ongoing trial.

It may be noted that a judicial committee constituted to probe the attack recommended action against senior officers of the capital police and the district administration for their negligence.

The committee, headed by Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, pointed out that the police and district administration authorities committed negligence before, during and after the terrorist attack.

Published in Dawn, July 8th, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play