2008 PLP 9 (MLD)

IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.

Through this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner seeks issuance of direction to respondent No.1 (S.H.O.) for registration of case against respondents Nos. 2 to 5 and challenges the order, dated 18-2-2007, whereby the learned Justice of Peace has refused to issue direction for registration of the case on the ground that already F.I.R. has been registered regarding the same occurrence and the petitioner can get his version recorded in the same F.I.R. or may file a private complaint, but the second F.I.R. will complicate the matter.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Ansar son of petitioner had been married with Mst. Sidra on 30-8-2004 against the wishes of respondent No.2 (father of Sidra) and other family members. Respondent No.2 got lodged a case against the son of the petitioner and other family members under section 11 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood), Ordinance No. VII of 1979 with the allegation' that she had been abducted by the son of the petitioner. Then Mst. Sidra Bibi had been residing in the house of the petitioner and on 19-6-2007 the private respondents abducted her forcibly on gun point and kept her in the house of Nabi Ahmad (respondent No.5) at Ferozwala, where she' was murdered on 21-6-2007. However, case F.I.R. No.497 of 2007 was registered at Police Station Ferozwala, District Sheikhupura on 21-6-2007 under section 302, P.P.C. on the statement of Muhammad Arif (respondent No.2).

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had moved an application under section 491-A, Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Silakot for the recovery of Mst. Sidra Bibi on 25-6-2007 and apprehension had been shown against the respondents for the murder of Mst. Sidra Bibi and the petitioner came to know about the murder of aforesaid Mst. Sidra Bibi when the report was submitted in the Court on 26-6-2007 by the S.H.O. that the alleged abductee was murdered; that after the abduction of Mst. Sidra Bibi, she was murdered by the private respondents, but in order to save their skin, the F.I.R. was got recorded on a concocted story only against Nabi Ahmad; while showing her unmarried, whereas all the respondents accused were responsible for the same.

4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned orders and other relevant documents attached with this writ petition.

5. Muhammad Ansar son of the petitioner claims to have contracted marriage with Mst. Sidra Bibi with her consent on 30-8-2004 against the wishes of respondent No.2 (father of Sidra) and other family members. Respondent No.2 also got lodged case against the son of the petitioner and other family members under section 11 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No.VII of 1979. The version of the petitioner is that Mst. Sidra Bibi had been residing in the house of the petitioner when on 19-6-2007 private respondents had abducted her forcibly on gun point and she was kept illegally in the house of Nabi Ahmad (respondent No.5) at Ferozwala. The petitioner moved an application under section 491-A, Cr.P.C. for the recovery of Mst. Sidra Bibi on 25-6-2007 before the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot, who called for report from the concerned S.H.O. The S.H.O, produced report on 26-6-2007 according to which the alleged abductee was murdered. The petitioner approached S.H.O. (respondent No.1) for the registration of case against the private respondents for the murder of Mst. Sidra, but in vain. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under section 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C. before the learned Justice of Peace for registration of case against the private respondents on 2-7-2007, who dismissed the same vide order, dated 18-9-2007 only on the ground that registration of the second F.I.R. will complicate the matter, which is not a proper approach. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the F.I.R. sought to be registered cannot be stopped as prima facie cognizable offence is made out from the perusal of the contents of the application and second F.I.R. can be registered Muhammad Anwar's case (PLD 1999 Lah. 50) and Ghanwa Bhutto's case (PLD 1997 Kar. 119) are referred. As per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case "Muhammad Bashir v. The State" (PLD 2007 SC 539), the preliminary inquiry cannot be conducted and the S.H.O. is bound to register the F.I.R. in a case of cognizable offence. Thus, respondent No.1 is directed to record the statement of the petitioner under section 154, Cr.P.C. and proceed further in accordance with law. However, the investigation of the said case will be conducted by some Senior Police Officer, who will try his best to bring on record the true picture of the occurrence and ensure that no injustice is done to any party. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of accordingly. N.H.Q./B-37/L Petition accepted.