2014 P Cr. L J 256
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, J
AZAD KHAN ---Petitioner
Versus
The STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION SATELLITE TOWN QUETTA
and 2 others ---Respondents
Criminal Quashment No.274 of 2013, decided on 6th September, 2013.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----Ss. 154, 182 & 190--- Petition for registration of second F.I.R.---Scope ---No embargo existed
with regard to registration of second F.I.R. in respect of different versions given by the aggrieved
party of the same occurrence---Only impediment was that second F.I.R. should not contain the
facts for the mere amplification of the first version ---Contention that only alternate remedy
available to the petitioner seeking registration of second F.I.R. was to file a private complaint
was without any substance ---Law though could also be set into motion by filing of a private
complaint before a Magistrate as provided by S.190, Cr.P.C., but there could be some cases,
where the evidence to prove the commission of an offence could not be collected, except through
the Police Agency ---Mere availability of alternate remedy, neither would absolve the S.H.O.
from discharging his official duties as envisaged under S.154, Cr.P.C., nor deter the court from
giving directions to the Police to record second F.I.R. in an appropriate case ---Contention that in
case direction for registration of second F.I.R. was given, then the matter would never end; and
there would be a chain and repetition of F.I.Rs., was repelled, since S.182, Cr.P.C. had furnished
a complete answer to the contention--- If a person would give the first information report to
Police Officer, which subsequently was found to be false, the informant could be liable to
punishment under provisions of S.182, Cr.P.C.--- S.H.O. concerned was directed to register the
F.I.R. of the petitioner as per his version against the proposed accused persons strictly in
accordance with law, in circumstances.
Wajid Ali Khan Durrani v. Government of Sindh 2001 SCMR 1556 rel.
Mrs. Ghanwa Bhutto v. Government of Sindh PLD 1997 Kar. 119 ref.
Attaullah Kakar for Petitioner.
Yahya Khan, D.P. -G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 27th August, 2013.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J. ---Through this petition, petitioner Azad
Khan seeks direction by this Court for respondent No.1 Station House Officer (SHO), Satellite
Town Police Station, Quetta to register second F.I.R. at his behest against the proposed accused
persons.
2. In the occur rence, subject matter of this petition, the father of petitioner; viz, Allah Nazar
lost his life, whereas the petitioner and his cousin, namely, Muhammad Dawood sustained
grievous injuries. The grievance of the petitioner is that the existing F.I.R. No.50 of 2013 dated
10th February, 2013, lodged by the SHO himself does not reflect the true account of the
occurrence. It is also the case of the petitioner that though the matter was promptly reported to
the SHO, yet he failed to lodge the F.I.R. against the c ulprits and by distorting the real facts,
himself lodged the F.I.R., while twisting the facts in order to save the culprits from clutches of
law.
3. In such state of affairs, the petitioner has been approaching the SHO and high- ups of the
police department for registration of second F.I.R. as per his own version, but all in vain. He
was, however, constrained to invoke the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge/Justice of the
Peace by filing an application under section 22 -A of the Criminal Procedure C ode, 1898
(Cr.P.C.) for registration of F.I.R., which was disposed of vide order dated 29th May, 2013 in the
following manner: --
"Counsel for the applicant is not in attendance. District Attorney is present. Report of
SHO has been received, which shows that section 302 of the P.P.C. has been incorporated
therein and F.I.R. has already been registered. Thus, in such circumstances, the application is
disposed of and SHO is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Application
is consigned to record."
4. I have heard Mr. Attaullah Kakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Yahya Khan,
learned Additional Prosecutor -General at length and also perused the available record of the case
minutely.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner c ontended that the legal and factual aspects of the
controversy have not been appreciated in its true perspective by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge -IV-/Justice of the Peace, Quetta, which resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. The
impugned order, on the face of it, suffers from legal infirmity, as the grievance of the petitioner
has not been dilated upon in its true sense. Rather the application was disposed of through a non-
speaking order without any concrete directions to the concerned SHO for doing the needful. He
further submitted that the findings of the learned Justice of the Peace regarding lodging of
second F.I.R. are erroneous and confusing, for the reason that there is no bar on registration of
second F.I.R., as the first F.I.R. lodged by the SHO himself, that too after joining hands with the
culprits in order to save them from the clutches of law, does not reflect the true facts.
6. Mr. Yahya Khan, learned Deputy Prosecutor -General (DPG), firmly resisted the petition.
He argued that the petition is not maintainable, as F.I.R. of the same incident has already been
registered by IP/SHO of Satellite Town Police Station, Quetta and during course of investigation,
the statements of petitioner as well as injured witness were also recorded, as s uch, neither was
there any justification for lodging of second F.I.R., nor is there any provision in the law for
registration of the second F.I.R. He, while concluding his arguments, submitted that the only
alternate remedy available to the petitioner was to file a private complaint before the competent
Court of law instead of praying for registration of the second F.I.R.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner from the day of incident has been agitating that his father was
murdered and injuries were caused to him as well as his cousin by the nominated accused
persons during a daylight occurrence. It is also evident from bare reading of the contents of
F.I.R. No.50 of 2013 lodged by the SHO that the firsthand information regarding the commission
of cognizable offence was conveyed to him by the cousin of the petitioner, namely, Muhammad
Dawood, thus, he was required to enter the same in a book to be kept by SHO in such form as the
provincial government may prescribe in this behalf. Prima facie, it seems that the SHO, instead
of lodging F.I.R. as per version of the injured Muhammad Dawood, while distorting the real
facts, lodged the F.I.R. himself, thus, in such state of affairs, the veracity and truthfulness of the
F.I.R. lodged by the SHO himself become highly doubtful and the petitioner was having a right
in asking for registration of another F.I.R. at his own version. I am mindful of the fact that during
the course of occurrence, some of the proposed accused persons have also sustained injuries as is
evident from the contents of F.I.R. No.50 of 2013, however, in such circumstances, it was
incumbent upon the SHO to lodge a separate F.I.R. regarding counter version instead of arraying
the victims and culprits in one and the same F.I.R. It is also worth mentioning that t he petitioner
invoked the jurisdiction of the learned Justice of the Peace by filing an application under section
22-A of the Cr.P.C. and urged for registration of the case at his own version, which, apparently,
was not disposed of in a legal manner. The l earned Justice of the Peace disposed of the said
application in a highly casual and clandestine manner without adhering to the relevant provisions
of law and dilating upon to the grievance of the petitioner.
8. The contention of the learned DPG that sinc e F.I.R. No.50 of 2013, under sections 337-
ADF, 302 read with sections 147 and 149 of the P.P.C. has already been registered on 10th
February, 2013, as such, second F.I.R., regarding the same incident cannot be registered, is also
without any substance. It is by now settled that there is no embargo with regard to registration of
second F.I.R. in respect of different versions given by the aggrieved party of the same occurrence
and the only impediment is that second F.I.R. should not contain the facts for the Mere
amplification of the first version. The question of registration of second F.I.R. came for
consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Wajid Ali Khan Durrani v.
Government of Sindh 2001 SCMR 1556, and the order of the High Court, whereby registration
of third F.I.R. was allowed on the ground that the two F.I.Rs. earlier registered by police did not
reflect the true facts of the case, was upheld. Similarly, it was also held that if information given
to a police officer, discloses a di fferent version, which was also cognizable by the police, then
unless it is a mere amplification of the first version, the same must be recorded by the police.
9. Similarly, the contention of the learned DPG that the only alternate remedy available to
the petitioner was to file a private complaint is also without any substance. It is true that the
criminal law can also be set into motion by filing of a private complaint before a Magistrate as
provided by section 190 of the Cr.P.C., however, it is equally true that there may be some cases,
where the evidence to prove the commission of an offence cannot be collected, except through
the police agency. Even otherwise, mere availability of alternate remedy neither absolves the
SHO from discharging his official duties as envisaged under section 154 of the Cr.P.C., nor
deters the Court from giving directions, to the Police to record second F.I.R. in an appropriate
case. In this regard, reference can be m de to the case of Mrs. Ghanwa Bhutto v. Government of
Sindh, PLD 1997 Karachi 119, wherein it was observed: --
"13. A question therefore arises, when can discretion be exercised by the High Court in
favour of an aggrieved party. It may not be out of place to mention here that, according to the
principle laid down by the superior Courts, discretionary power must be exercised in good faith
having regard to all relevant considerations and it should be exercised justly, fairly and
reasonably. Therefore, although an alternate remedy is provided for to an aggrieved part y under
the law, by way of a complaint yet, the mere fact that an alternate remedy has been provided for,
may not deter the Court from giving directions to the police to record a F.I.R. in an appropriate
case."
10. Reverting to the last contention of the learned DPG that in case direction for registration
of second F.I.R. is given, then the matter will never be ended and there will be a chain and
repetition of F.I.Rs., however, I am not impressed by the said contenti on, because it too has no
legs to stand on, as section 182 of the Cr.P.C. furnishes a complete answer to the said contention.
If any person gives the first information report to police officer, which, subsequently, found to be
false, the informant can be l iable to punishment under the said provision of law.
In view of the above, the order dated 29th May, 2013, passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge -IV, Quetta is set aside and respondent No.1 i.e. SHO, Satellite Town Police
Station, Quetta is dir ected to register the F.I.R. of the petitioner as per his version against the
proposed accused persons, strictly in accordance with law.
HBT/93/Bal. Order accordingly.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.