ISLAMABAD - The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Tuesday admitted a petition seeking registration of a murder case against former President Pervez Musharraf for ordering military operation against Lal Masjid.

Justice Noor-ul-Haq N Qureshi heard the petition and issued notice to SHO Aabpara Police Station. Haroon Rahid, son of late Ghazi Abdul Rashid, filed the petition and moved the court through his counsel M Tariq Asad Advocate and made SHO Police Station Aabpara and General (Retd) Pervez Musharraf as respondents.

In his petition, he mentioned an order of Supreme Court dated 2-10-2007 in which it was stated by IG Police that after recording the statements of all the concerned, the police would proceed in the matter strictly in accordance with law.

The petitioner continued that he submitted several applications before the SHO Aabpara to register FIR but the same were refused. He contended that in ‘ Operation Silence’ a large number of innocent persons including boys and girls were killed against the law of the land and a large number of students became missing during the operation.

Haroon stated that now the evidence has been produced before the fact-finding commission and about 400 witnesses appeared and recorded their statements. It is clear that then President Musharraf had ordered military operation while Musharraf had at various occasions confessed that 94 persons were killed in Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafsa operation.

The petitioner stated that he filed a petition under Section 22-A of CrPC before the learned Justice of Peace who dismissed the petition without assigning any reason. He argued that learned Justice of Peace passed the impugned order in a slipshod manner without appreciating the facts and law involved in the matter.

He added that then President Musharraf committed atrocities and by misuse of his powers managed to murder innocent people including his father Ghazi Abdul Rashid and his grandmother Sahib Khatoon. “They were murdered mercilessly and in a brutal and callous manner,” Haroon further added.

The petitioner said that the law required that he should be punished for his misdeeds of killing innocent people and this is only possible if criminal case be registered against him. He contended that the learned additional and sessions judge had not assigned a single reason in his impugned order as to why he did not order for the registration of the case.

‘Only PM can take action against IGP’: The Secretary Interior Tuesday expressed his inability to take action against Inspector General of Islamabad Police Bani Amin before the Islamabad High Court (IHC) in Musharraf escape case. While presenting a report related to the action taken against the IGP before the court during the hearing of the case against the IGP for his alleged role in Musharraf’s escape from the IHC after cancellation of his bail in judges’ detention case, Interior Secretary Javed Iqbal stated before the court that any action against the IGP could be taken with the approval of the Prime Minister.

“The IGP is officer of grade 21 and according to Civil Services Act, only Prime Minister could take action against him,” stated the interior secretary.  Earlier, Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui resumed the hearing in Musharraf escape case and enquired why FIRs were not registered against all those responsible for the escape of Musharraf. On this occasion, he said that the court orders should be implemented in totality and added whether it was secretary or the prime minister none has the right to seek opinion from anyone about court’s orders.

The interior secretary replied that the matter was sent to the law ministry for seeking opinion while he added that proposal of a panel of federal secretaries including Qamar Zaman Chaudhary, Shahid Rashid and Shahidullah Baig had been sent to Establishment Division to grill Bani Amin in the case.

Expressing its annoyance, the court observed that referring any matter to the law ministry is tantamount to putting it in abeyance. Justice Siddiqui directed him to take action against the IGP in accordance with the law.

Later, the court adjourned the hearing till May 13 for further proceedings in this regard.