LHC to hear arguments on plea against Model Town JIT

A seven-member bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC) headed by Chief Justice Muhammad Ameer Bhatti will hear on Wednesday (today) further arguments on the maintainability of the petitions challenging the formation of a second joint investigation team (JIT) on the Model Town killings.

Petitioners Rizwan Qadir Hashmi and Khurram Rafique, both police officials, have challenged the formation of the JIT for the second time on the June 2014 tragedy in which several protesters were killed allegedly in police fire.

During the hearing on Tuesday, Chief Justice Bhatti told the petitioner’s counsel to initiate arguments on the maintainability of the petitions. Later, lawyers Azam Nazir Tarar and Burhan Moazam Malik argued on the important features of the case.

Tarar informed the court that the incident occurred on June 16, 2014 and the complainant Inspector Rizwan Qadir Hashmi got registered the first information report (FIR). Sitting on the bench, Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmed Khan asked when the second FIR was registered on the complaint of Jawad Hamid.

The counsel said that the Idara Minhajul Quran was not satisfied with the first FIR, therefore, its management went to sessions court and obtained order for the registration of FIR. On August 28, the second FIR was registered by complainant Jawad Hamid.

Tarar said that a JIT was constituted on the first FIR, and added on a court query that another JIT was formed on the second FIR on November 17, 2014. Replying to another court query, he added that the police took its own decision to constitute the second JIT.

Read Govt fined over pending response to LHC

The JIT report along with challan was submitted before the court in 2015, Tarar told the court. The charges were farmed on December 19, 2015 on 43 accused in the second FIR. After that the victims filed a complaint, the proceedings on the second FIR were adjourned for indefinite period.

The petitioners, Rizwan Qadir Hashmi and Khurram Rafique had challenged the formation of the JIT for the second time. They contended that one judicial commission and a JIT had conducted an investigation into the incident so the formation of JIT for the second time was illegal.