1988 P Cr (PLP)

Haji Riazuddin Ahmad for Petitioner. Malik Farrukh Mehmood for Respondents. Saleem Masood Rizvi, A.A.-G. for the State. Date of hearing: 23rd September, 1987. This Constitutional Petition has been filed for the issuance of a direction to the S.H.O. Police Station Abbas Nagar to register a case against the respondents.

2. The facts leading to this Constitutional Petition, in substance, are that Muhammad Sadiq and Muhammad Saeed were proceeding towards Chak No.85/DB Tehsil Yazman by a motor-cycle. On 21-6-1987 at about 8-00 a.m. they reached near the Dera of Ghulam Nabi Bhatti and saw Muhammad Azeem, Muhammad Ameen, Muhammad Shabbir, Haji Ghazi and Muhammad Hassan having emerged therefrom and they halted them. Muhammad Sadiq parked his motor-bike aside and the accused threatened that they would teach him a lesson of taking possession of their joint land. Muhammad Azeem gave a Soti blow which hit the petrol-tank of the motor-bike which was broken. Muhammad Sadiq and Muhammad Saeed attempted to run away but they overtook Muhammad Saeed and overpowered him. They injured Muhammad Saeed and Muhammad Saeed also gave injuries to Muhammad Azeem. Muhammad Saeed died as a consequence of those injuries and a case was registered against the accused.

3. The version put forth by Muhammad Azeem is that Muhammad Rashid, the brother of Mohammad Sadiq, was seen in an objectionable state with Mst. Zahoor Begum, Wife of Manzoor Ahmad, and Ghulam Rasool, the brother of Manzoor alongwith Abdul Ghaffoor and Abdul Hameed had beaten Muhammad Rashid. The matter was reported to the Police and both the parties were involved in cross security cases. On account of the said grievance, Muhammad Sadiq, Rashid and Muhammad Saeed etc. are stated to have attacked Muhammad Azeem and others and injured Muhammad Azeem. On their alarm, Muhammad Rashid was apprehended by the villagers who was given blows by the villagers and he succumed to the injuries.

4. It is contended that the S.H.O. Concerned is bound to record their counter-version in a separate F.I.R. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Abdul Ghani v S.H.O. P.S. Saddar Sheikhupura and others 1983 P Cr. L J 2172, Mirza v. The S.H.O. 1982 P Cr. L J 171, Akram Ali Shah v. Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Kasur and 2 others (P L D 1979 Lahore 320) and Allah Ditta and 3 others v. The S . H . O . P . S . Basirpur, District Okara and 3 others P L D 1987 Lah. 300. in all these precedents the principle has been laid down that a second F.I.R. can be recorded by way of counter-version even. But in P L D 1987 Lahore 300, it has been stated that if a party has a grievance, or counter-version of the occurrence, then notwithstanding recording of F.I.R. from the other side, direction can be issued and if no useful purpose would be served and the alternate remedy of a complainant is more efficacious then the other remedy should be adhered to.

5. Conversely, in Kaura v. The State and others 1983 S C M R 436 it has been held that when a case has been registered in respect of previous occurrence, then the registration of a fresh case is not called for notwithstanding divergent version contained therein and the Police is not only competent but also duty bound to unearth true facts and trace real culprit. This principle enunciated in the said ruling was followed in Mushtaq Ahmad v. The S.H.O., Police Station, Munawan 1984 P Cr. L J 1454 and Wali Muhammad and 4 others v. The State and others 1985 P Cr. L J 1342. The facts of this case are .peculiar. The petitioner and others have been challaned in the case registered by Muhammad Sadiq and prosecution evidence has been summoned on 27-9-1987. The counter-version stated by Muhammad Azeem has already been investigated by the Police and in the circumstances a second F.I.R. shall not serve any useful purpose. The private complaint is efficacious remedy for Muhammad Azeem, if he so likes. I, therefore, decline to issue a direction for the registration of second F.I.R. regarding the counter-version put forth by Muhammad Azeem and dismiss this writ petition. M . A . K . / M-435 / L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.