2005 P Cr (PLP)

Petitioner being an accused of F.I.R. No.22 dated 1-2-2005 under sections 452, 354, 420, 468, 471, 419, 148, 149, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Chotiana, District Toba Tek Singh, prayed its quashment on the ground that regarding same occurrence earlier F.I.R. No. 136 dated 7-8-2004 was registered on complaint of respondent No.2, which after due inquiry/investigation, was cancelled by the Investigating Officer (D.S.P.) whereafter registration of second case on the basis of same set of facts, allegations and occurrence, is misuse of process of law and is contrary to provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C. Reliance in this behalf was placed on the case of Ch. Waheed-uz-Zaman v. Jamil and others 1997 PCr.LJ 1167.

2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 strenuously opposed the petition with the arguments that successive registration of cases on the basis of same occurrence is not barred under law, thus, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be granted. Reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of Wajid Ali Khan Durani and others v. Government of Sindh and others 2001 SCMR 1556.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Examination of contents of both the F.I.Rs. i.e. 136 dated 7-8-2004 and 22 dated 1-2-2005 revealed that both are verbatim reproduction of each other and there is no difference of a word therein. The first case after its registration, was duly investigated and was proposed to be cancelled by the Investigating Officer, which under the orders of concerned Magistrate met the fate of its death. After cancellation of case, respondent No.2 being its complainant could have filed a private complaint under section 200, Cr.P.C. or could have further challenged the order of cancellation, but he by deserting these remedies opted to hale registration of fresh case after about six months through F.I.R. No.22. Once the petitioner having been declared to be innocent, having not committed any cognizable offence, provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C. were not available for re-embarking upon the matter on the same facts/allegations. This Court after scanning the case-law including judgment by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Jamshed Ahmed v. Muhammad Akram Khan and another 1975 SCMR 149 held in the case of Ch. Waheed-uz-Zaman (supra) that on the basis of same occurrence, facts/allegations, second F.I.R. is not permissible, especially when the earlier F.I.R. stood cancelled on the basis of police report under section 173, Cr.P.C.

4. There is no cavil about the proposition that had there been any malpractice by the police or anybody else in registration of first F.I.R., C the subsequent registration of case could have been done, as mandated by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Wajid Ali Khan Durani and other (supra). In this precedent case, widows of the deceased were not satisfied with two previous registered. F.I.Rs. as they had felt that those did not reflect the true facts. In this case, first F.I.R. was registered at the instance of a Police Officer, who was suspected by the widows of the deceased, being himself accused in the case whereas the second F.I.R. was registered at the instance of a private servant of one of the widows, who was in police custody. In these circumstances, registration of third F.I.R. under the orders of this Court was not interfered, but in the instant case no such circumstance cropped up and registration of second F.I.R., on the face of it, was misuse of process of law.

5. For the reasons noted, above, I am constrained to hold that after cancellation of F.I.R. No.136 dated 7-8-2004 F.I.R. No.22, dated 1-2-2005 on the complaint of the same person with same set of facts/ occurrence, was sheer out of colourful exercise of powers under section 154, Cr.P.C. and amounted to misuse of process of law, thus, the same is not sustainable. This petition is accordingly allowed, F.I.R. No.22 dated 1-2-2005 registered with Police Station Chotiana, District Toba Tek Singh, is declared to be void and of no legal consequence and the same is quashed with no order as to costs. N.H.Q./M-1154/L F.I.R. quashed.