P L D 2008 Lahore 103 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AZAM — Appellant Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, ISLAMABAD and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2008 Lahore 103 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AZAM — Appellant Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, ISLAMABAD and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2008 Lahore 103 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2008 Lahore 103 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2008 Lahore 103 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AZAM — Appellant Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, ISLAMABAD and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar M. Ishaq Khans for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 302/324
Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3
Single Bench of High Court in a constitutional petition had directed to entrust the investigation of the entire occurrence to a senior officer in FIA not below the rank of a Director FIA
Two persons had lost their lives and five persons were seriously injured in the said occurrence
Grievance of the appellant was that the existing FIR did not reflect the true account of the occurrence
FIA under the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974, was not competent to investigate the existing F.I.R., as offences mentioned in the F.I.R. were not included in the Schedule on the date when impugned order was passed i.e. 15-7-2003
Schedule was amended on 18-2-2004 and S.302, P.P.C. stood included therein
Likewise inquiry prior to registration of an F.I.R. was not contemplate under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Similarly where a different, opposite or a cross version was put forth by the complainant which had disclosed commission of a cognizable offence, second F.I.R. was not barred-S.H.O. concerned was directed in circumstances to register second F.I.R. on the complaint of the appellant, investigation of which was further directed to be conducted by the local police instead of FIA as required under the Police Order, 2002, taking into account the mandate and provision of Rule 25.2 of the Police Rules, 1934
Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Inquiry before registration of F.I.R.
Inquiry prior to registration of an F.I.R. is not contemplated under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
S. 154
Information in cognizable cases
Second F.I.R., recording of
Where a different, opposite or a cross version disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, is put forth by the complainant, second F.I.R. is not barred.
Judgment & Decree
In this appeal, the learned counsel has called in question order of the learned single Bench of this Court dated 15-7-2003 passed in writ petition No.2289 of 2002. In the said order learned Single Bench held that:-- "it shall meet the ends of justice to entrust the investigation of the entire occurrence to a senior officer in FIA who shall not be less than the rank of a director FIA who shall examine the version of both the parties, independently and impartially after giving full opportunity to the parties to produce oral and documentary evidence in support of its version. The said investigation shall be concluded positively within three months and along with other findings it shall also recommend whether a separate F.I.R in line with one as contended by the petitioner is liable to be registered."
2. In the occurrence, subject matter of this appeal, two persons namely Haq Nawaz and Muhammad Latif lost their lives and five other were seriously injured. The grievance of the appellant is that existing F.I.R. No. 221 of 2002 dated 29-7-2002 does not reflect the true account of the occurrence.
3. It may also be pointed out that an inquiry was also conducted by the District & Sessions -Judge, Islamabad in this matter. In the said inquiry report it was recommended that the investigation may be conducted by another agency instead of Islamabad police. It seems from the impugned order that this recommendation was approved and got favour from the learned Single Bench.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their respective arguments.
5. We are afraid under the FIA Act, 1974, the FIA was not competent to investigate F.I.R. No.221 of 2002 as offences mentioned in the F.I.R were not included in the Schedule on the date impugned order was passed i.e. 15-7-2003. The Schedule was amended on 18-8-2004 and now section 302 stands included. Likewise, inquiry prior to registration of an F.I.R. is not contemplated under the provisions of the Code. This point has been resolved repeatedly by the superior Courts of this country. In this regard, reference may be made to PLD 2005 Lahore 470 and PLD 2007 SC 539.
6. Similarly, it has been repeatedly held by superior Courts of the country that where a different, opposite or a cross version is put forth by the complainant which discloses commission of cognizable offence, second F.I.R. is not barred. In this regard, reference may be made to PLD 1978 Lahore 187 and Miss Ghanwa Bhuttoo and others vs. Government of Sindh and others, PLD 1997 Karachi 119.
7. In view of the above discussion and foregoing reasons, we direct S.H.O. of the concerned police station to register second F.I.R on the complaint of the appellant. It is further directed that investigation shall be conducted by the local police instead of FIA as required under the Police Order, 2002. The Investigating Officer shall take into account the mandate and provision of Rule 25.2 of the Police Rules, 1934. This I.C.A. is allowed in the above terms. N.H.Q./M-586/L Appeal allowed.