ISLAMABAD - The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Friday disposed of a petition filed by the parents of Zahir Jaffar, the prime suspect in Noor Mukadam murder case, seeking annulment of the trial court order of framing charges against them. 
A single bench of IHC comprising Justice Aamer Farooq conducted hearing of the petitions and disposed of the petition after counsel withdrew it. 
During the hearing, Zakir’s counsel, Raja Rizwan Abbasi, appeared before the court earlier and requested to withdraw the petition. The court accepted his plea and disposed of the matter. 
Zakir moved the court through his lawyer Raja Rizwan Abbasi and cited the state and Shaukat Mukadam, father of Noor Mukadam, as respondents. 
Last week, Additional Sessions Judge Atta Rabbani indicted 12 suspects including Zahir, his parents, Zahir’s employees Muhammad Iftikhar, Jameel Ahmed, and Muhammad Jan, and six Therapy Works employees including CEO Tahir Zahoor. 
In the petition filed in IHC, Jaffar stated that he moved a petition before the trial court that charge cannot be framed against him which was rejected vide order dated October 14 illegally and unlawfully. 
Zakir submitted the trial court’s verdict is inappropriate from a legal point of view. He added that the same is bad in law, not tenable in law, based upon whims and caprice. He added, “Impugned order further reveals that trial court presumed that framing of charge is a mechanical exercise of authority and whatever is labeled by the police, charge is to be framed as per wish of prosecution/ police authorities.” 
The petitioner continued, “Section 221 (5) CrPC is very much important which says that charge is framed equivalent to his statement that every legal statement prescribed to the offence is fulfilled.” 
He maintained that the case of prosecution is based upon surmises and conjectures and charge cannot be framed on the basis of whims of investigating officer. He added that the impugned order is reckless exercise of authority and against the basic provision of law. 
The petitioner further said that the impugned order also shows that the same is totally oppressive in nature and learned trial court has taken cognizance in violation of section 195(1)(a) of CrPC and charged has been framed in utter disregard to the mandate of law.
Therefore, he prayed to the court that the instant petition may be accepted and order dated October 14 passed by the trial court may be set aside.