2020 M L D 1969
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhailand Nazeer Ahmed Langove, JJ
MUHAMMAD ESSA ---Petitioner
Versus
MUDASIR AHMED and 3 others ---Respondents
Constitutional Petition No.746 of 2019, decided on 16th December, 2019.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S.22 -A (6)(1) ---Ex-Officio Justice of Peace ---Direction to register case --- Effect ---
Petitioner was aggrieved of direction issued to Station House Officer by Ex -Officio Justice
of Peace to register case against petitioner ---Validity ---Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, instead
of issuing direction for recording version of complainant, directed Station House Officer for
registration of FIR ---Ex-Officio Justice of Peace committed error while issuing such
direction as the same was not according to the guideline provided by Supreme Court ---High
Court directed investigating authority to record version of complainant and order passed by
Ex-Officio Justice of Peace was set aside ---Petition was allowed, in circumstances.
Sugh ran Bibi's case PLD 2018 SC 595 rel.
Muhammad Shabir Rajput for Petitioner.
Sarwar Khan Kakar for Respondent No.1.
Sudheer Ahmed Baloch, DPG along with Ghulam Muhammad, S.H.O./Incharge
Levies Thana, Hanna for the State.
Date of hearing: 16th December, 2019.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD KAMRAN KHAN MULAKHAIL, J .---The petitioner has invoked
the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan, 1973, and sought the following relief:
"It is therefore, respectfull y prayed that the order impugned having been rendered in
militancy with the Law pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in
Mst.Sughran Bibi case (PLD 2018 SC 595) (sic) may kindly be set aside in the
interest of justice and law."
2. The petitio ner through the instant petition, has called in question the order dated 25'h
July, 2019, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge -I, Quetta, being designated ex -
Officio Justice of the Peace, wherein the application filed by the respondent No.1 (Mu dasir
Ahmed) under Section 22 -A(6)(1) Cr.P.C, was accepted and the respondent No.2 was
directed to register the FIR. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court, in the
light of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Su ghran Bibi's case
(PLD 2018 SC 595), on a strength that no FIR of counter version could be registered, but the
learned ex -Officio Justice of the Peace, without observing this aspect, passed the impugned
order. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard, record perused .
4. Perusal of the case file reveals that the petitioner registered an FIR No. 08 of 2019
under Section 337 -ADF, 427, 34 P.P.C. with Levies Thana, Hanna, Quetta on 01.07.2019,
against Bashir Ahmed, Ghulam Nabi, Naseebullah and Aminullah, with the averment s that
the above named persons attacked upon him and his brother and caused them multiple
injuries on their person and, while his vehicle bearing registration No. ACK -923 was also
damaged. On 04.07.2019, the respondent No.1 also approached the Tehsildar Le vies Thana,
Hanna by filing an application for lodging the FIR in respect of the same incident and on
failure, approached the ex -Officio Justice of Peace, wherein his application was accepted
vide order dated 25th July 2019, directing the respondent No.2 f or registration of FIR.
5. Admittedly, both the version of the respective parties are
outcome of same incident, in respect of which an FIR 08 of 2019 Levies Thana, Hanna,
Quetta has already been registered by the petitioner, thus, the version of the respondent was
to be received, recorded and investigated in the same FIR, in view of dictum laid down by
the hon'ble apex Court in the Sughran Bibi v. State (PLD 2018 SC 595). The relevant
passage whereof is reproduced hereunder:
"The confusion prevailing in the matter of registration of multiple FIRs in respect of
the same offence stems from a misunderstanding that an FIR is the version of the
incident reported to the police whereas the legal position is that an FIR to be
registered under section 154, Cr. P.C. is only an information about commission of a
cognizable offence and not an information about the circumstances in which such
offence was committed or by whom it was committed. If the information supplied to
the police not only reports commission of a cognizable offence but also contains a
story as to how and by whom the offence was committed then such further
information is just a version of the informant and during the investigation the
investigating officer is free to entertain any number of versions advanced by any
number of persons and it is his duty "to discover the actual facts of the case and to
arrest the real offender or offenders. He shall not commit himself prematurely to any
view of the facts for or against any person" as mandated by Rule 25 .2(3) of the Police
Rules, 1934 reproduced above. All subsequent or divergent versions of the same
occurrence or the persons involved therein are to be received, recorded and
investigated by the investigating officer in the same "case" which is based upon the
one and only FIR registered in respect of the relevant "offence" in the prescribed book
kept at the local police station."
The learned ex -Officio Justice of the Peace, instead of issuing direction for recording
version of the respondent No.1, directed the respondent No.2 for registration of a separate
FIR, which was not according to the guideline provided by the hon'ble apex Court, thus,
committed an error.
For afore -discussed reasons, this petition is accepted and the order dated 25th July
2019 passe d by the learned Justice of Peace/Additional District and Sessions Judge -I, Quetta
is hereby set aside, followed by dismissal of the application filed by the respondent No.1.
However, the investigating authority is directed to record the version of the res pondent No.l.
in case FIR No. 08 of 2019, Levies Thana Hanna, Quetta, investigate the matter impartially
and submit a separate challan before the court, within three weeks positively.
This detailed order shall constitute the reasoning for our short order of even date.
MH/123/Bal. Petition allowed.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.