2017 P Cr. L J 313
[Balochistan]
Before Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Zaheer -ud-Din Kakar, JJ
ADDITIONAL PROSECUTOR GENERAL, BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA--- Petitioner
Versus
ABDUL QADEER and another ---Respondents
C. P. No. 463 of 2016, decided on 27th October, 2016.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S. 154---Registration of second FIR --- Scope---Registration of second FIR in respect of
different version given by aggrieved party of the same occurrence was not barred ---Only
impediment on the same was second FIR would not contain the facts for the mere amplification
of the first version ---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----S. 302--- Qatl-i-amd---Registration of second FIR ---Scope ---No hard and fast rule or principle
could be laid down as to when second FIR could or would be recorded--- Matter of registration of
second FIR had to be seen in the context of totality of the circumstances and the allegations of
every case--- No bar existed against the registration o f second FIR regarding the same
occurrence---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.
Mrs. Ghanwa Bhutto v. Government of Sindh PLD 1997 Kar. 119 and Wajid Ali Khan
Durani v. Government of Sindh 2001 SCMR 1556 rel.
Muhammad Younas Mengal, A.P.- G. for Petitioner.
Manzoor Ahmed Shah for Respondent No.1.
Date of hearing: 19th October, 2016.
ORDER
ZAHEER -UD-DIN KAKAR, J. ---A constitutional petition was filed against the order
dated 23.07.2016 "the impugned order" passed by the learned Justice of the Peace/Sessions
Judge, Mastung "the trial court" whereby an application under section 22- A, Cr.P.C. filed by the
respondent/applicant No.1 was accepted and directed the SHO Police Station City, Mastung for
registration of the FIR.
2. Precisely, stated the facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/applicant filed an
application under section 22- A, Cr.P.C. before the trial court with averments that his son namely
Abdul Majeed was serving in Airport Security Force (ASF) and he was sent to Rawalpindi f or
commando course. According to the applicant, on 13.3.2016 Abdul Majeed came to Mastung
and he was murdered at Aziz Abab Link road by unknown persons. He approached the SHO,
Saddar Police Station, Mastung time and again for lodging FIR regarding murder of Abdul
Majeed, but no heed was paid by the SHO on the pretext that an FIR bearing No.13/2016 has
already been lodged against such incident. The trial court called a report from SHO and after
hearing arguments of both the sides, accepted the application vi de impugned order and directed
the SHO Police Station City, Mastung for registration of the FIR. Feeling aggrieved from the
impugned order, the Additional Prosecutor General filed the instant petition.
3. The learned APG contended that the impugned order i s contrary to the facts and principle
of natural justice because the SHO P.S Mastung had already registered the FIR No.13/2016
under sections 302, 511, 397, 34, P.P.C. against the real culprits in which necessary investigation
has been completed and challan was submitted before the trial court. It is further contended that
as per FIR No.13/2016, on 13.3.2016 Ali Ahmed complainant along with his brothers Jalil
Ahmed and Samiullah were riding the motorcycle towards their house. On the way, at Link road,
Aziz Abad, unknown accused persons stopped them and tried to snatch the motorcycle, but the
complainant Ali Ahmed overpowered the deceased Abdul Majeed and due to firing of co-
accused Ali Ahmed and the deceased sustained injuries. Finally he prayed for setting aside the
impugned order.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 strongly opposed the petition and
defended the impugned order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record
available. Prima facie, it app ears that it is a case of two versions. On the one hand, the
respondent No.1 claim is that his son namely Abdul Majeed (deceased) was serving in ASF for
last three years and he was sent to Rawalpindi for Commando training and on the fateful day,
when he re ached to Mastug from Rawalpindi, he was murdered by unknown persons. The father
of Abdul Majeed submitted an application for registration of the case to SHO, but he refused to
register the case. While on the other hand the petitioner's claim is that on the fateful night the
deceased along with his two companions tried to snatch motorcycle from Ali Ahmed. The
attempt was resisted and in the meanwhile, due to firing of his companions Abdul Majeed died,
while Ali Ahmed sustained injuries.
6. The manner in whic h the two versions came on the record, it will be the trial court to
come to exact conclusion. It is by now settled that there is no embargo upon registration of
second FIR in respect of different version given by the aggrieved party of the same occurrence
and the only impediment is that second FIR should not contain the facts for the mere
amplification of the first version. No hard and fast rules or principles can be laid down as to
when a second FIR can or should be recorded. The matter of registration of second FIR is to be
seen in the context of the totality of the circumstances and the allegations of every case.
Absolutely, there is no bar against the registration of second FIR regarding the same occurrence.
In this regard, reference can be made to the case of Mrs. Ghanwa Bhutto v. Government of Sindh
{PLD 1997 Karachi 119}, wherein the order of registration of 3rd FIR was passed by the learned
Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, which was, subsequently maintained by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of P akistan in case of Wajid Ali Khan Durani v. Government of Sindh {2001
SCMR 1556}. The learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh while dealing with the
proposition, in paragraph 9 of the judgment observed as under:
"9. Reference to the case -law, the refore, indicates that there is no hard and fast rule that a
second FIR cannot be registered in respect of a different version given by an aggrieved
party of the same occurrence. If information is subsequently given to a police officer,
which discloses a d ifferent offence, also cognizable by the police, then unless it is a mere
amplification of the first version, it must be recorded by the police. Therefore, direction
to the police to record a second FIR would depend upon the circumstances of each case.
If true facts in respect of an occurrence are not reflected by the first FIR, then refusal to
record a genuine version of the same occurrence would not be justified. The question has,
therefore, to be examined in the light of the circumstances of a particular case."
7. In view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can safely be inferred
that if a distinct and separate cognizable offence is disclosed and no factual inquiry is or trial can
be held without properly appreciating and considering the two versions, then another FIR has to
be registered. The learned prosecutor has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the
impugned order, warranting interference.
Thus, for what has been discussed above, the petition is dismissed.
JK/76/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.