2007 P Cr (PLP)

MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.

This I.C.A. proceeds against the judgment dated 15-2-2007 whereby the learned single Judge in chamber while accepting Writ Petition No.480 of 2007 filed by Mst. Saban respondent seeking registration of second F.I.R., directed the S.H.O. Police Station Shahkot to perform his legal obligation and register the second F.I.R. on the statement of Mst. Saban writ petitioner and proceed strictly in accordance with law.

2. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant:-- (I) That although registration of second F.I.R. was not barred by law yet. the fact remains that the story being set up by respondent No.2 is not consistent with the one already incorporated in the earlier F.I.R. No.376 of 2006 dated 14-11-2006; (II) That respondent No.2 despite claiming herself to be the eye witness of the occurrence dated 14-11-2006 kept mum till 24-11-2006 filed a petition before the learned Justice of Peace under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. on 28-41-2006 i.e. after lapse of fourteen days but this fact has been ignored by the learned single Judge in chamber while passing the impugned order; (III) That the learned Justice of Peace in exercise of his jurisdiction under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. did not direct registration of case but only directed the S.H.O. to record statement of the petitioner and proceed strictly in accordance with law, whereas, the learned Single Judge in chamber wrongly construed the same as a direction for registration of case which type of direction could not be issued in constitutional jurisdiction; and (IV) That Mst. Jannat Bibi (deceased) for whose murder the order for registration of case has been passed by learned Single Judge in Chambers had appointed the appellant in her life time as her General Attorney in respect of her land because she was issueless and had adopted the appellant as her son, therefore, the respondents in furtherance of their common object/intention committed the murder of Mst. Jannat Bibi and then in order to save their skin, they have tried to implicate the appellant in the said case but this fact has also not been taken into consideration by the learned single Judge.

3. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel and perused the entire material available before us.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out that the impugned order of the learned single Judge either suffers from any jurisdictional defect or has been passed in wrong exercise of jurisdiction. As held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case Mst. Anwar Begum v. Station House Officer, Police Station Kalri West Karachi and 12 others PLD 2005 SC 297 and Mrs. Ghanwa Bhutto and another v. Government of Sindh and another PLD 1997 Kar. 119, also relied upon by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, there is no embargo with regard to registration of second F.I.R. in respect of different version given by the aggrieved party of the same occurrence and the only impediment is that second F.I.R. should not contain the facts for the mere amplification of the first version. It is the case of respondent No.2 that she along with her sister being first cousins of Mst. Jannat (deceased) are her legal heirs and Ahmad Yar appellant in order to grab the property of Mst. Jannat, murdered her in connivance with respondents Nos.3 to 8, whereas, according to the first F.I.R. No.376 got lodged by Ahmad Yar appellant, Mst. Jannat was murdered by respondents Nos.3 to 8 and this fact can only be determined during investigation and not through this Intra-Court Appeal. The appellant would have a chance to place all his cards before the Investigating Officer and as held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others 2006 SCMR 276, if the appellant is found innocent, the Investigating Officer may submit report for cancellation of case. Further, if as a result of investigation the appellant is found innocent the Investigating Officer may get him discharged from the concerned Magistrate under section 63, Cr.P.C. or may submit report for cancellation of the case before the Magistrate who may refuse to take cognizance of the matter on the basis of such report. The question of delay in approaching the Court by the respondents and keeping mum from 14-11-2006 to 24-11-2006 may also be taken into consideration either by the Investigating Officer or by the learned trial Court during trial. Finally, the maintainability of this appeal filed against a direction for registration of the F.I.R., is also doubtful ink the light of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case Nawazul Haq Chowhan v. The State 2003 SCMR 1597 holding that "Intra-Court Appeal against the order of learned Single Judge of the High Court passed in constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution quashing the F.I.R., was not maintainable", and the said principle would equally apply to the present "proceedings", which in the light of the above mentioned judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court does not include the word "F.I.R.", so as to file Intra-Court Appeal in terms of proviso to section 3(1) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. Resultantly, this Intra-Court Appeal has no force and is dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./A-89/L Appeal dismissed.