1989 P Cr (PLP)

Akhtar Shabbir, A.A.G. and Syed Zulfiqar Haider for the State. Date of hearing: 7th February, 1987. This is a Constitution petition filed by Pervaiz Akhtar, petitioner, seeking a declaration that the registration of F.I.R. No.27 at the instance of Fazal Din at Police Station Nankana Sahib on 17‑1‑1987 is illegal and without lawful authority and that the same be cancelled and expunged from the register of F.I.Rs. maintained at that police station.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on the statement of Pervaiz Akhtar, petitioner, a case F.I.R. No.12 was registered on 9‑1‑1987 at 12‑10 p.m. at Police Station Nankana Sahib, District Sheikhupura, under section 307/148/149, P.P.C. It was stated inter alia in the F.I.R. that Abdul Hameed, who was empty handed, and Ghulam Farid, Muhammad Ali, Javed, Muhammad Latif, Rashid and Mujahid Aslam, all armed with shot guns, opened attack on the complainant party with their respective weapons and as a result of the same, Pervaiz Akhtar, petitioner, Khushi Muhammad, Safdar, Ali Muhammad and Nazir Muhammad received fire‑arm injuries. The motive for the occurrence was that three days prior to the occurrence, Rashid, Majeed, Aslam and Javed, accused, who were drunkards, had, whilst passing by the house of the complainant party, been disorderly, as a result of which they had exchanged abusive language with the complainant party and some scuffle had also taken place. It was also alleged that on the previous evening on 8‑1‑1987 the said four persons had also whilst passing by the house of the complainant in drunken condition, abused the members of the complainant party.

3. It appears that Fazal Din, one of the members of the accused party, on the same day i.e. 9‑1‑1987, submitted a written application to the S.H.O. Police Station Nankana Sahib, for the registration of an F.I.R. in respect of the same incident. A reference of this application was recorded in the Zimini of the case referred to in para. 1 above. Since no action was taken by the police the said Fazal Hussain approached the Superintendent of Police as a result of which the Deputy Superintendent of Police orally directed the S.H.O., Police Station Nankana Sahib, to register the F.I.R. of Fazal Din. Accordingly, F.I.R. No.27 was registered at the instance of Fazal Din on 17‑1‑1987 against Muhammad Pervaiz, Ali Muhammad, Abdul Ghafoor, Nazir Ahmad and Manzoor. According to the version given in this F.I.R. Mujahid Aslam was passing, in front of the house of Muhammad Pervaiz, accused. He was attacked and injured by the said five accused. Ali Muhammad accused, was armed with a revolver, Muhammad Pervaiz accused, was armed with a gun, and the other three accused were armed with Dangs. This incident was witnessed by Fazal Din and others. The motive for the occurrence was that Mujahid Aslam had illicit relations with Mst. Irshad Bibi, niece of Ali Muhammad accused, and though he had been restrained from passing in front of the house of the accused, he had continued to do so, which had annoyed the accused.

4. Pervaiz Akhtar, accused, who is the complainant of F.I.R. No. 12 of 1987, challenges the registration of the F.I.R. No. 27 of 1987 registered at the instance of Fazal Din.

5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents and the State and have perused the police file of the case. Reading the contents of both the F.I.Rs. it is obvious that the counter‑version given by Fazal Din in F.I.R. No. 27 of 1987 is not by way of defence but by way of separate grievance. It is not Fazal Din's case that the accused named m his case were aggressors; rather, his case is totally different from that given by Pervaiz Akhtar, present petitioner, (F.I.R. No. 12 of 1987). Prima facie, the counter‑version given by Fazal Din in his F.I.R. No. 27 of 1987 appears to be by way of grievance and not as a defence. In this view of the matter, being bound by the principle laid down by this Court in Akram Shah's case P L D 1979 Lah. 320, Muhammad Aslam's case P L D 1979 Lah. 907, Malik Muhammad Aslam's case P L D 1981 Lah.138, Mirza's case 1982 P Cr. L J 171 and Abdul Ghani's case 1983 P Cr. L J 2172, 1 do not see any illegality in the registration of the second F.I.R. at the instance of Fazal Din. Since the two versions contained in the two F.I.Rs. are different versions of two different occurrences and not two versions of the same occurrence and recoveries have to be made from the five accused, I would not like to interfere in this matter.

6. For, the foregoing reasons, there being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. M.Y.H./P‑79/L Petition dismissed.