2009 PLP 2057 (YLR)

GHULAM MOHYUD DIN MALIK, J.

Arguments heard and record perused.

2. This is a petition for quashment of order of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, Mansehra dated 6-11-2007 whereby directed the S.H.O. (respondent No.2) to register second F.I.R, on the application filed by Mst. Rafaqat Bibi, against the complainant party of double murder case, registered vide F.I.R. No. 365 on 13-8-2007 under sections 302/109/34, P.P.C.

3. The available record shows that on 13-8-2007, Mst. Faiza, daughter of Javed and Mst. Rafaqat Bibi resident of Maswaal, District Mansehra, along with Basharat son of Muhammad Maroof were killed. Muhammad Maroof made report against Javed, his wife Mst. Rafaqat and others.

4. It is alleged in the said F.I.R. that deceased Mst. Faiza had contracted Nikah with his son Tariq two months before the occurrence, that a few days prior to the occurrence, Tariq left for Dubai, for earning livelihood. In the meanwhile, Javed through a Jirga invited Mst. Faiza to his house as guest; that she stayed there for some days and thereafter, called him (Muhammad Maroo) on phone that she wanted to come back to the house of her in-laws, therefore, he asked his son Basharat to bring her but the enraged father of Mst. Faiza along with others killed him as well as Mst. Faiza in his house, on 13-8-2007.

5. As against this, after about 8 days of the occurrence, i.e., on 21-8-2007 Mst. Rafaqat submitted an application to the Justice of Peace with counter story charging complainant party of the said F.I.R. for abducting her daughter Mst. Faiza by force and in the process killed her inside the house and added that later on she learnt about the murder of Basharat as well. On her application, Mr. Bakht Zada Khan, Additional Sessions Judge Mansehra vide order dated 10-11-2007 directed registration of the F.I.R.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of Justice of Peace, one of the accused, Shahzad Jehangiri filed the instant petition for quashment of said order. This 'petition was heard for the first time on 13-11-2007 and on Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.364/2007 the operation of impugned order was suspended by .this Court.

7. Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khan Swati Advocate representing the petitioner submitted that Mst. Rafaqat could join the investigation in the murder case, put forward their plea in defence; that the application to Justice of Peace was filed after 8 days of the occurrence, after consultation, deliberation and after start of investigation in the murder case; that she and her co-accused did not take any such plea of counter story in their bail application which fact further makes her version doubtful.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Akbar Khan Swati Advocate by defending the cause of. Mst. Rafaqat Bibi, argued that all the members of her family were nominated as accused in the double murder case, therefore, how could they make the report promptly after the occurrence. Further stated that in the F.I.R. mentioned above, one sided picture has been given by suppressing the true facts and their own role in commission of crime, therefore, the respondent having no other adequate remedy filed the application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. for registration of cognizable offence agent petitioner and others.

9. At the very out set, it may be noted down that in the application there is no allegation against the local police that the complainant had gone for registration of case and it was not registered. Moreover, it does not stand to reason that their daughter Mst. Faiza had been murdered inside the house and they would go into hiding without attending the dead body and making report of the incident. In this view of the matter delay of 8 days in lodging the report to Justice of Peace is fatal. Further more, in the presence of one F.I.R., of double murder case registration of second F.I.R. is hardly a requirement of law. The respondents if at all have any evidence or proof in support of their respective version they can put the same before the Investigating Officer of the case or may, if so advised, could avail alternate remedy of private complaint to the trial Court.

10. Actually there is no provision in section 154, Cr.P.C. to record a second F.I.R. containing different version of the same incident. (1984 PCr.LJ 1454) when one F.I.R. about the incident has been registered in respect of cognizable offence which has moved the police into motion, to investigate and get at the truth honestly, fairly and in right direction. No rule exists that in all circumstances and in each case, registration of second F.I.R. is a requirement of law.

11. In the instant case as observed above, registration of second F.I.R. according to wishes and desire of accused party that too with a considerable delay is neither peremptory nor obligatory. The phrase in section 154, Cr.P.C., "every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence" can set the law in motion, irrespective of the fact whether the information was correct of false. It is for the Investigating Officer to make investigation, collect evidence and then shall form an opinion as to the truthfulness of the information. I mean the provision of section 154, Cr.P.C. does not contemplate that the police shall go on recording numerous F.I.Rs of the occurrence, one after another, following the vain desire of interested persons. If this practice is encourages then every one will come in circle and when the last does his turn another, will start again and this will go on, holding investigation in the first F.I.R. in abeyance.

12. To sum up the above, it is held that the police during investigation of registered F.I.R. in a cognizable offence is competent to challan any one including the complainant if it comes to the conclusion on evidence that they had committed the crime.

13. Undoubtedly, where a distinct and separate cognizable offence is reported bona fidely and in the case already registered, no independent investigation of inquiry is possible, then of course, registration of cross F.I.R. with counter version would become necessary but as discussed above the facts of the instant case are such that there seems no necessity of recording second F.T.R. Moreover, the case law reported in PLD 2007 SC page 539 referred to in the impugned order is distinguishable in the sense that in the cited case the police had refused to register the case in cognizable offence, the Ex-officio Justice of Peace had directed the registra?tion of F.I.R. which was accordingly registered but was later on quashed by the High Court whereas the facts of instant case are quite different. In this case one F.I.R. about the incident has been registered and the investigation is in progress.

14. For the foregoing reasons, it is held that registration of second F.I.R. is neither necessary nor would meet the ends of justice. The Investigating Officer in the registered murder case is duty bound to conduct investigation justly and fairly without fear and favour, with profound reverence toward GOD.

15. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 6-11-2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Ex-officio Justice of Peace is quashed on acceptance of this petition. H.B.T./156/P?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order quashed.