2021 M L D 1742
[Balochistan]
Before Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Rozi Khan Barrech, JJ
AMANULLAH ---Petitioner
Versus
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE SARIAB, QUETTA and 3 others ---Respondents
C.P. No.673 of 2018, decided on 2nd July, 2020.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----Ss.22- A & 22 -B---Powers of Ex- officio Justice of Peace--- Registration of second FIR ---
Scope ---Petitioner, accused of kidnapping and murder, claimed himself to be innocent in the
FIR lodged against him and came forward to l odge a second FIR for the same incident for
which the proposed accused had already lodged an FIR and challan thereof had also been
submitted ---No second case could be registered for giving a counter -version thereof by an
accused ---Constitutional petition w as dismissed.
Sughran Bibi v. The State PLD 2018 SC 595 rel.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----Ss.22- A & 154--- Powers of Ex -officio Justice of Peace---Information in cognizable cases -
--Registration of second FIR ---Scope ---No direction can be issued for lodging the second
FIR when an FIR has already been registered in respect of the incident.
Miss Jameela for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 25th June, 2020.
ORDER
ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J. ----Through the instant petition, the petitioner has
prayed a s under:
"It is, therefore respectfully prayed that impugned order dated 08.05.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Sariab, Quetta being ultra vires and illegal may kindly be set aside.
Further the respondent No.2 may kindly be ordered to lodge FIR against the accused persons mentioned in application under section 22- A Cr.P.C., in accordance with
relevant section, in the interest of justice."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the FIR No . 22 of 2018 dated 24.03.2018 was
registered with PS Shalkot on complaint of one Shah Muhammad against the petitioner for
offence under sections 302, 343 and 34, P.P.C., with the allegation that the petitioner Amanullah and co- accused persons abducted Mst. Nazia Bibi and today i.e. on 24.3.2018
dead body of the deceased Mst. Nazia Bibi was found in a ground near Dilshad Karez Quetta.
On the other hand according to the petitioner in fact Mst. Nazia Bibi was kidnapped by her
family members; that on 24.03.2018 the Mst. Nazia Bibi and her husband came to the court
for attending the court proceedings; that after attending the court proceedings they were
kidnapped by the family members of the deceased Mst. Nazia Bibi, whereafter it came to the knowledge of the fam ily of the petitioner that Mst. Nazia Bibi was murdered/killed and her
dead body was thrown in Akhtar Abad. It is alleged by the petitioner that the allegation leveled against him was fabricated and in fact the lady got married with her own will and was sp ending life with her husband Noorullah (cousin of the petitioner) and the family of the
deceased (Mst. Nazia Bibi) murdered/killed the lady Nazia Bibi in the name of honor; that certain application were moved by the petitioner against the accused persons f or lodgment of
the FIR but since they are influential persons, therefore the concerned authorities were reluctant to proceed with the matter against them. The petitioner filed an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sariab under Section 22-A Cr.P.C but the same was
dismissed vide order dated 8.5.2018.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the entire
record.
4. The petitioner claimed himself to be innocent in the FIR lodged against him and has
come forward to lodge a second FIR for the same incident for which the proposed accused has already lodged an FIR and challan thereof has also been submitted. Perusal of counter
version FIR of the application, which was moved before the Additional Sessions Judge reflect the same facts and circumstances regarding commission of alleged offence, which has
already reported by the proposed accused in the first FIR.
5. We have asked from learned counsel for the petitioner that how second FIR in respect
of the same incident , under the circumstances of the case, can be permitted to be registered
against the private respondents? He submitted that under the law second FIR with regard to same incident can be registered. We are not impressed with the arguments of learned counsel for the reason that when a case has been registered in respect of an occurrence, no second case can be registered giving a counter -version thereof by the accused person. If this were so
in each criminal case, there will be one FIR lodged by the complainant party and another by
the accused because it is not likely that any of the accused will not have a counter -version of
the allegation made against him in the FIR that would mean that for each crime, two FIRs should be registered. This of course is not the l aw. In the case law reported as Sughran Bibi
v. The State (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 595), it has been observed that after entering the first information relating to commission of a cognizable offence in the prescribed book, i.e. after registration of an FIR the matter became a "case" and therefore every step taken in the ensuing investigation was a step taken in that case and second FIR was not allowed in the cited case.
6. For the forgoing reasons and the case law cited supra, we are of the considered
opinio n that now law has been well established that no direction can be issued for lodgment
of second FIR when first FIR has already been registered in respect of the incident for giving
counter -version of the other side. Consequently, the petition is hereby dis missed.
SA/228/Bal. Petition dismissed.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.