Additional Prosecutor General, Balochistan, Quetta V. Abdul Qadeer and another,
Bench: Zaheer Ud Din Kakar
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a dispute over whether police could be ordered to register a second FIR (First Information Report) about the death of Abdul Majeed, a young man serving in the Airport Security Force who was killed on 13 March 2016 near Mastung.
Police had already registered one FIR describing the death as resulting from a botched motorcycle-snatching attempt, in which the deceased and his companions allegedly tried to rob a man named Ali Ahmed, who fired in self-defense. However, the deceased's father gave a completely different account, claiming his son was murdered by unknown persons while returning from training, and that police refused to record his version because a case was already registered. He approached the Sessions Judge acting as Justice of the Peace, who ordered a second FIR to be registered. The government's prosecutor challenged this order before the Balochistan High Court, arguing it was improper since investigation and a court challan already existed under the first FIR.
The High Court dismissed the challenge, holding that Pakistani law does not prohibit registering a second FIR when a different, genuinely conflicting version of the same incident is presented, so long as it is not merely repeating or embellishing the first account. Since the father's account described an entirely different scenario (murder by unknown people, not a robbery gone wrong), the court held it deserved independent investigation. The case reaffirms that competing narratives of the same crime can each generate separate FIRs, leaving it to trial to determine the truth.
یہ مقدمہ اس تنازعے سے متعلق تھا کہ آیا پولیس کو عبدالمجید کی موت کے بارے میں دوسری ایف آئی آر (فرسٹ انفارمیشن رپورٹ) درج کرنے کا حکم دیا جا سکتا ہے یا نہیں۔ عبدالمجید ایک نوجوان تھا جو ایئرپورٹ سیکیورٹی فورس میں ملازم تھا اور 13 مارچ 2016 کو مستونگ کے قریب قتل ہو گیا تھا۔
پولیس نے پہلے ہی ایک ایف آئی آر درج کر رکھی تھی جس میں اس موت کو موٹرسائیکل چھیننے کی ناکام کوشش کا نتیجہ بتایا گیا تھا۔ اس روایت کے مطابق مرحوم اور اس کے ساتھیوں نے علی احمد نامی شخص کو لوٹنے کی کوشش کی، جس نے دفاعی طور پر فائرنگ کی۔ تاہم مرحوم کے والد نے اس واقعے کی بالکل مختلف کہانی بیان کی۔ ان کا دعویٰ تھا کہ ان کا بیٹا تربیت سے واپس آتے ہوئے نامعلوم افراد کے ہاتھوں قتل ہوا، اور پولیس نے اس کا بیان درج کرنے سے انکار کر دیا کیونکہ پہلے سے ایک مقدمہ درج تھا۔ وہ سیش
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
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.