P D 1998 Lahore 111 (PLP)

7. Raja Abdul Aziz Bhatti, Advocate, appearing for the complainant contended that as F.I.R. No. 70 dated 23-5-1997 had already been registered by the Police Station Civil Lines, Jhelum, in respect of this very occurrence, second F.I.R. was not called for. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the following judgments which are qualified by the facts therein stated:- (i) Kaura v. The State and others 1983 SCMR 436; (ii) Sajjad Ahmad v.S.H.O., P.S. Kunjah and another PLD 1993 Lah. 18; (iii) Malik Anjum Farook Paracha and 7 others v. Manzoor-ul-Haq Chohan? and 4 others 1993 PCr.LJ 1056; (iv) Riaz Ahmad v. the Inspector of Police/Station House Officer, P.S? Baseerpur etc. 1991 PCr.LJ 6. ?

8. It would thus, appear that the precise question which needs determination by this Court is as to whether in the presence of the F.I.R. registered and referred to hereinabove, the second F.I.R. can or cannot be registered. .9? I have surveyed the case-law for and against the proposition and on the basis thereof, I am of the considered opinion that in the circumstances of this case second F.I.R. could not be refused to be registered. In Halim Sarwar v. S.H.O., P.S. Head Marala and 2 others (1984 PCr.LJ 2993) after reveiwing a number of judgments cited before his lordship Mr. Justice Gul Zarin Kiani, as he then was, held that:--" if the commission of a cognizable offence was brought to the notice of the S.H.O., then he could not refuse to register a formal F.I.R.. For, it was his duty to record the information and to proceed and investigate the Ymatter as provided in section 154, Cr.P.C. His lordship further held that "even if an F.I.R. has been registered on the basis of one-sided version, registration of a second F.I.R. showing a different grievance could not be refused by the police in proper performance of its duty under section 154, Cr.P.C. In Ch. Ataullah v. Ch. Mumtaz Ahmad Kahloon and 3 others 1973 PCr.LJ 69, Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, J. held as follows:- "It is one thing to say that some case is registered with reference to a particular incident and quite another that a case is registered with reference to the particular allegations. It is admitted by the learned counsel that no case registered in respect of the allegations made in this case. If some other case was registered in respect of the incident which happened on that day that would not be a bar for the registration of another case on different allegations though arising out of the same incident. " The contention raised against the registration of the second F.I.R. was then repelled by his Lordship Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, J. by holding that "the contention of the learned counsel is untenable, if accepted, it will mean that there can be no cross-cases registered at the instance of the contending parties opposing each other. " In Sawant v. S.H.O., Kasur etc. PLD 1975 Lah. 733, his lordship Mr. Justice Atta Ullah Sajjad, J. as he then was, held as follows:- "The provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C. are imperative in nature. The information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence has to be reduced by the S.H.O. into writing and investigation has to be conducted therein. The version given by the complainant party only describes their side of the case as to how the offence was committed. The petitioner now insists, this version is not correct and that his side of the case should be investigated according to law. Of course, it is open to him to file a complaint but the learned counsel for the petitioner insists that it is his right to demand that the police should do their duty and investigate his side of the case. It was further held by his Lordship in the same judgment that 'in my view, the correct legal procedure for the police should have been to record the F.I.R. containing the counter version and to have investigated it. If they found that the evidence adduced by the petitioner did not sustain the charge, they could have submitted a report to the Magistrate for cancellation of the case. It was held by the learned Chief Justice in Ch. Ataullah v. Ch. Mumtaz Ahmad Kahloon and 3 others 1973 PCr.LJ 69 that even if the police has made investigation in a case with reference to the particular evidence produced by one party, another report with reference to the same incident is not barred. I respectfully follow this dictum. I also say with great respect that the language of section 154, Cr.P.C. is imperative and the police officer cannot dub the counter version as false without first investigating the matter. His duty is to make investigation.' Again in Syed Saeed Muhammad Shah and another v. The State 1993 SCMR 550, his lordship Syed Sajjad Ali Shah, Chief Justice of Pakistan with reference to the provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C. held that 'under section 154, Cr.P.C. it is mandatorily bounden duty of the police officer to register F.I.R. of cognizable offence'. In Muhammad Afzal v. Muhammad Ashraf and 15 others 1996 PCr.LJ 489, the learned Single Judge of Azad J&K High Court after surveying almost the entire case-law on the point held: 'a critical survey of the statutory law laid down in section 154, Cr.P.C. analysis of the authorities referred to above and the consensus of the authorities reveals that the second F.1.R. is not barred in appropriate cases disclosing cognizable offence, particularly the cases of counter versions. The argument that there shall be no end of registration of F.I.Rs. in one occurrence, can be successfully met by a guarantee provided in section 182, Cr.P.C. ensuring the correctness of the information and investigation conducted by a police officer under section 157, Cr.P.C. If any person gives the first information report/statement to a police officer turning to be false, the informant can be liable to punishment under the above section but in case of refusal, there can be greater hardships for the informant against whom a case has been registered against the facts. Therefore, in my view the correct legal procedure for the police is to record the F.I.R. containing the information with regard to the counter version and to investigate it. If they find that the evidence adduced by the informant did not sustain the charge, they can submit the report to the Magistrate for cancellation of the case. "

10. A bare perusal of the extracts from the various judgments referred to and reproduced hereinabove, would show that the registration of a second F.I.R. embodying the counter version of a case is neither legally barred nor can such an F.I.R. be refused to be registered. Reverting to the facts of the instant case as already pointed out the F.I.R. already registered in this case is conspicuous by the absence of any mention whatever of the facts as alleged by- the petitioner, Raja Gulzar Ahmad. In the absence of the registration of an F.I.R. embodying the allegations of the petitioner, there is no question of the investigation of the same. The information as to the commission of the cognizable offences having been brought to the notice of the S.H.O. by the petitioner Raja Gulzar Ahmad, he just could not refuse to register the F.I.R. containing his version of the case. In the light of what has been discussed hereinabove, the instant petition is therefore, accepted. The petitioner Raja Gulzar Ahmad, shall approach the S.H.O., P.S. Civil Lines, Jhelum with a written application containing his version of the case and the said S.H.O. shall register an F.I.R. pursuant thereto.

11. In order to do complete justice to the parties and keeping in view the demands of fairness and fair play, it is further directed that the F.I.R. having been registered by the S.H.O., P.S. Civil Lines, Jhelum pursuant to the orders hereby made, the same shall be investigated by S.P., Crimes Branch, Rawalpindi. Why is it necessary that the investigation of this case be entrusted to the S.P., Crime Branch, Rawalpindi is because of the facts forming the background of this case. Respondent No. l in the instant writ petition, Raja Mushtaq Ahmad, is a practising Advocate at the District Courts, Jhelum. It was argued before this Court that the F.I.R. already registered in this case was registered at the asking of the entire District Bar Jhelum who went up to the S.S.P., Jhelum to have the same recorded and it is also a matter of record that the earlier F.I.R. was registered under the orders of the S.P., Jhelum. The entire Bar being thus, allegedly so much involved in the affair and the S.H.O., P.S: Civil Lines, Jhelum being directly subordinate to S.P., Jhelum at whose instance and under whose orders the first F.I.R. has been registered, if the matter is left to be investigated by the same S.H.O. justice shall not be done to the case and the petitioner shall remain as aggrieved as he is now. The instant writ petition is accordingly accepted with these observations and in the above terms. N.H.Q./G-51/L? Petition accepted