P L D 1999 Lahore 39 (PLP)

3. According to the story given in the F.I.R., Jamaat‑e‑Islami arranged a procession to reach National Assembly and protest against the Budget for the year 1996‑97 and had to demonstrate through "Dharna" against the Government. When the procession reached near Ikram Building Jang Plaza under the control of Mukhtar Ahmad Shalwani, Assistant Commissioner and Zikria Asad, Inspector alongwith Pervaiz Iqbal, A.S.I. and other police officials, Abid Mian, Magistrate Ist Class and some officials of police constabulary while also on duty with the concerned police. A message was received that the workers of Jamaat‑e Islami while coming from Gujjar Khan side near Pull Chhanni Sher Alam conflicted with police officials and caused damage to police vehicles and carriage belonging to the police employees, whereupon the Assistant Commissioner Shalwani directed the police to be alert and in the meanwhile 3000/4000 persons armed with Lathis, Dandas and fire‑arms reaching there through buses put on fire a police post at Mareerh Chowk with a motorcycle belonging to police and also threw brick bats at police. This procession was proceeding towards Liaqat Bagh, when another procession headed by Qazi Hussain Ahmad coming from Rialto Cinema side with other participants, namely, Dr. Muhammad Afzal Aizaz, Asghar Gujjar, M.P.A., Dr. Kamal, Faiz‑ul‑Hassan Chauhan, Raza Ahmad Shah and Zafar Butt alongwith many others appearing from Mareerh Hassan side started raising slogans and aggressively marched towards Liaqat Bagh. The workers, who were present on the top roof of Ikram Building started firing and brick‑batting. The procession despite repeated warnings did not disperse and as a result thereof Tear Gas Shelling under the order of the Assistant Commissioner Shalwani was opened with Lathi‑charge at them. Two young participants of the procession receiving injuries of the firing being made by their companions from Ikram Building died at the spot. A few police constables and other persons were also injured. The participants of the procession through brick‑batting also caused damage to the Police vehicles. Then, on the direction of the Assistant Commissioner, firing was opened by the police in the air, which remained continued for about one hour. The two deceased and the injured were immediately removed to the hospital.

4. On the day of occurrence i.e. 24‑6‑1996, an application was moved by Maulvi Abdul Jalil, Amir Jamaat‑e‑Islami, Rawalpindi City to the S.H.O. Police Station Waris Khan, which is to the following effect:‑‑ "That on 24‑6‑1996, a procession headed by Qazi Hussain Ahmad proceeded towards Islamabad to raise demand before the Prime Minister House, Islamabad. The procession when reached near Jang Building, Murree Road, Iftikhar Ahmad Shalwani, Assistant Commissioner City ordered for Tear Gas Shelling for dispersement of the procession, but it did not disperse and consequently the Assistant Commissioner, who was also armed with a gun alongwith police officials holding fire‑arms started firing. The fire made by Iftikhar Ahmad, Assistant Commissioner hit Abdul Samad of Abbottabad, who succumbed to the injury at the spot. Muhammad Shafiq, receiving injury of police firing died on his way to the hospital. As a result of police firing and shelling the following persons were injured:‑ (1) Umar Hayat Bajwa, (2) Amjad Hussain, (3) Qamar Hayat, (4) Javed Mahboob, (5) Ghulam Shabbir Qadri, (6) Bashir Ahmad, (7) Khalid Farooq, (8) Asghar Gujjar (M.P.A.), (9) Major (Retd.) Muhammad Sami, (10) Muhammad Irshad, (11) Muhammad Aslam Siddiqui, (12) Hafeez Iqbal, (13) Bashir Ahmad, (14) Muhammad Saeed Butt, (15) Mudassar Aqeel, (16) Ajmal Khan, (17) Muhammad Tariq, (18) Muhammad Ashiq Shami and (19) Shaukat Ali. The occurrence allegedly took place at the instance of Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto, Interior Minister Naseer‑Ullah Babar, Sardar Muhammad Arif Nakai, Chief Minister Punjab, Qamran Zafar, Commissioner Rawalpindi, Javed Iqbal Awan, Deputy Commissioner, Rawalpindi and the local police. A case was requested to be registered accordingly."

5. This application of Maulana Abdul Jalil remained pending unattended and was not entertained on the ground that a case has already been registered. The applicant being aggrieved of the conduct of local police filed a writ petition before this Court, which succeeded and a direction was issued for registration of case on the basis of contents of said application. The Inspector/S.H.O. instead of complying with the order of the Court and discharging his duty has filed this I.C.A. for setting aside of the order of learned Single Judge in Chamber.

6. Learned Additional Advocate‑General appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that before passing of the order in the writ petition a case under section 302/324/186/353/148/149/188/427, P.P.C. was registered through F.I.R. No.247, dated 24‑6‑1996 at Waris Khan Police Station on the statement of one Riaz Anwar, S.I. and that instead of registering a second F.I.R. pertaining to the same occurrence, the statement of the respondent as witness under section 161, Cr.P.C. can be recorded. He argued that the order of the learned Single Judge being not legal is not sustainable, which is needed to be recalled.

7. Conversely, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent argued that the story given in the F.I.R. by the Sub‑Inspector did not represent the correct position. According to him, the victim of the occurrence while participating in the procession were making lawful demands from the Government through making protest before the National Assembly but on the direction of abovementioned high‑ups, they were fired at and killed brutally and instead have been held responsible for the attack on the police party. He argued that the F. I. R. did neither disclose the detail of the accused nor contain the name of the injured and the deceased with role played by individual participant or a member of police party and that a fake F.I.R. has been registered to favour the accused and to save the actual culprits. He argued that it was not a matter of recording the version of the complainant in the F.I.R. registered by the police with distorted facts and that the S.H.O. was under legal obligation to entertain the complaint of the respondent and proceed under section 154, Cr.P.C. He vehemently contended that the order of learned Single Judge is not interferable.

8. We have heard the learned counsel at length. The perusal of the order impugned herein shows that learned Single Judge in Chamber after a detailed examination of the matter and discussion of the facts and also keeping in view the factum of registration of an F.I.R. after the occurrence by the Police, directed the S.H.O. for recording the statement of writ petitioner under section 154, Cr.P.C. and registration of a case accordingly. We also noticed that the case registered through the abovesaid F.I.R. did not disclose the true facts and represents one side story, favourable to Police and the Authorities and if the . same story is treated the story of prosecution and investigation is allowed td continue on the basis thereof, it would amount to change the direction of the case and justify the action of Assistant Commissioner City, the Police Officials A and their masters at the cost of lives of two innocent persons and a number of injured. This must be observed. that in .the circumstances, the processionists being citizens of Pakistan while raising genuine: demand were riot committing an offence to be restricted by force through State violence either in Rawalpindi or Islamabad on public places and no person in authority howsoever high he was, could restrain movement of any citizen except in accordance with law and in any case the functionaries were not allowed to take life and liberty of the participants of the procession. Thus, it being not an ordinary case between two groups of individuals to be inquired into in an ordinary manner, but a matter between the citizens and the public functionaries of the Government, therefore, the complaint lodged by a citizen against the illegal action of the Government functionaries must receive full weight under the law and cannot be treated as an ordinary complaint. There is no cavil to the proposition that in normal course two F.I.Rs. for the same occurrence are not registered, except in case of counter version, but in the circumstances of the present case, the report disclosing actual facts must A be entertained and proceeded accordingly. The twp complaints containing different stories can be investigated together, but refusal to register .a case of victim reflecting mala fide of the Police to dislodge the story of the complainant is not permissible. The circumstances of the present case demand that notwithstanding the registration of case by the Police, the complaint lodged by the respondent herein disclosing true facts of the case. must be entertained and a case must be registered accordingly.

9. We having examined the matter in detail, do not find any legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and are not prepared to interfere in the same for the cbnvenience of the Police and Public functionaries. Hence, B we confirming the said order direct the S.H.O., Police Station Waris Khan for its compliance in letter and spirit within a fortnight and submit report to the Additional Registrar of this Court with a copy of the F.I.R. forthwith.

10. In the light of above discussion, we having found no substance in this IC appeal dismiss the same with no order as to costs. N.H.Q./M‑815/L Appeal dismissed.