2026 PLP 816 (YLR)

Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J.

Through this application, applicant Ghulam Murtaza Mirani has assailed the order dated 18.04.2025 penned down by 1st Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Shikarpur, wherby he has allowed the application under section 22-A(6)(i), Cr.P.C filed by respondent No. 3 against the applicant and directions were issued to SHO concerned to record the statement of respondent No. 3 in terms of section 154, Cr.P.C.

2. Learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that a police encounter occurred within the jurisdiction of PS Dour, District Shaheed Benazirabad on 24.08.2024, in which the son of respondent No. 3, namely, Aijaz Ahmed Mirani was killed and to such effect FIR No. 141/2024 was registered at PS Dour, under sections 324, 353, 393, 401, P.P.C. He further submits that said Aijaz Mirani, the son of respondent No. 3, was also involved in Crime No. 208/2024 of PS B-Section, Nawabshah, under sections 394, 396, 397 read with Sections 302 and 34, P.P.C. He, therefore, submits that under the scheme of law no provision for lodgment of second FIR provided; hence, best course for the respondent No. 3 was to maintain direct complaint in terms of Section 200, C.P.C. or may approach the I.O. of Crime No. 141/2024 for recording her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. as is embodied in the case of Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State (PLD 2018 SC 595).

3. Learned Addl. P.G. also supports the application and opposes the impugned order in view of the dicta laid down by Apex Court in the case of Mst. Sughran Bibi (supra).

4. Mr. Shahbaz Ali Brohi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, submits that deceased Aijaz Ahmed, son of respondent No. 3 was taken away by the applicant/proposed accused from Shikarpur, then he was shown killed in a fake police encounter, therefore, impugned order does not suffer from any illegality of infirmity, which may warrant interference by this Court. Mr. Brohi further submits that as far FIR Crime No. 208/2024 of PS B-Section, Nawabshah is concerned, the name of deceased Aijaz Ahmed was not mentioned in the FIR and later the complainant had got recorded his further statement before I.O., on which basis Aijaz Ahmed was arraigned as an accused in said case, therefore, the assertion so made by learned Counsel for the applicant negates his plea.

5. Admittedly, the son of respondent No. 3, namely, Aijaz Ahmed has been shown killed in an encounter with police within the jurisdiction of PS Dour, District Shaheed Benazirabad on 24.08.2024. As far the contention of respondent No. 3 that her son was taken away by the applicant/proposed accused from Shikarpur, is concerned, it is yet to be established by her through evidence; however, under the scheme of law no provision for second FIR has been provided. She, however, is at liberty to file a complaint in terms of Section 200, Cr.P.C. or may approach to the I.O. of Crime No. 141/2024 of PS Dour, District Shaheed Benazirabad, for recording her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C.

6. The Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan while discussing the issue of second FIR in case of Sughran Bibi (supra) held that investigating officer may record a number of versions of the same incident brought to his notice by different persons in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C and no separate FIR is to be recorded for any new version in respect of the same incident brought to the notice of the investigating officer during investigation of such crime. Thus, issue of registration of second FIR stood settled; hence, second FIR cannot be registered for the same incident.

7. In the circumstances and in view of dicta laid down by learned Apex Court in the case of Mst. Sughran Bibi (supra), the impugned order is not tenable. Consequently, instant criminal application is hereby allowed. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 18.04.2025 penned down by 1st Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Shikarpur is hereby set aside. JK/G-30/Sindh Application allowed.