1995 P Cr (PLP)

(h) That injured Ghulam Qadir was admitted, at around-8-25 a.m. in the Services Hospital, Lahore which is an hour's drive from the place of occurrence which cuts at the root of the F.I.R. and the timings therein. (i) That respondent No.3 has deliberately given wrong timings in the F.I.R. to distort facts to concede concession to the aggressors. (j) That the reference of 'Rana Zulliqar Ali Party' in the F.I.R. is very dangerously manoeuvred by the respondent No.3 to show that there were two opposing parties/factions whereas Rana Zulfiqar Ali is only occasionally supervising the work of Messrs Nana Corporation (Pvt.) Limited in the absence of its Chief Executive. There is a deliberate mischief by the respondents Nos.2 and 3 to involve Rana Zulfiqar Ali who is not party to the issue. It is, therefore, prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to register F.I.R. against Amanat Ali, brother-in-law of Karamat Ali (name not known), Muhammad Rafique (father-in-law) of Karamat Ali, Rana Iqbal alias Balu, Judge son of Rana Iqbal, Farzand Ali alias Phaney Khan, Rana Aftab Ahmad, Maratab Ali for the offences of attempted Qatal-e-Amd by forming unlawful assembly, rioting for the offences and in furtherance of common object as detailed in paragraph No. 13 of this writ petition. Khalid Saeed, Mian Shabbir Ahmad, Aftab Ahmad Waraich, Shahbaz Ali add Younis Butt S.H.O. respondent No.2 at whose instigation the occurrence took place and respondent No.3, being a police official wilfully and intentionally distorted the facts and abetted the offence by protecting and guarding the actual culprits and have extended improper, purported to be a legal cover, help in the commission of cognizable criminal offences as made out in Para, No.13 of this petition. It is further prayed that the investigation of the case may graciously be ordered to be deputed to a Police Officer of the rank of Deputy Inspector-- General as the local police officials i.e. respondents Nos.2 and 3 have exhibited favour to the actual accused and have deliberately acted to the detriment of the petitioner and his colleagues.

6. The bone of contention between the various parties being a valuable piece of land measuring about (100/90) Kanals situated in Mauza Rakh Paji, Raiwind, Road, Tehsil and District Lahore. A report alongwith parawise comments were called for from the Station House Officer of Police Station Raiwind (respondent No.2). Since serious allegation had also been levelled against a learned Civil Judge, it was directed that a Law Officer should appear in this case on the next date of hearing. Report and parawise comments from the Station House Officer of Police Station City Raiwind (respondent No.2) have been received and perused.

7. As per report and parawise comments of the Station House Officer of Police Station City Raiwind and also submissions made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, three parties are fighting inter se over land admittedly belonging to the Government of the Punjab and each one of the three parties wants to grab the said piece of land.

8. Be that as it may, the case of the petitioner is to the effect that although a first information report has been lodged regarding the occurrence, which took place on the 1st of. October, 1994 in which the petitioner was also injured, but the said first information report does not correctly or accurately reflect the version of the petitioner and; therefore, that F.I.R. should be cancelled and a new F.I.R. at the instance of the petitioner should be recorded.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it is the statutory duty of the police to register the first information report and also that there is no bar to the registration of a second first information report regarding the same occurrence. In this context learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the cases of Altaf Hussain v. S.H.O. and 2 others reported in 1993 MLD 2059, Syed Saeed Muhammad Shah and another v. The State reported in 1993 SCMR 550 and Mst. Shamim Akhtar v. Fiaz Akhtar and 2 others reported in PLD 1992 SC 211.

10. In the case of Altaf Hussain v. S.H.O. and 2 others 1993 MLD 2059 my learned brother Munir A. Sheikh, J. has held that under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no hard and fast rule that no second F.I.R. can be registered in respect of different version of an incident or regarding an incident taking place on the same date on which another incident had already taken place. In the case of Syed Saeed Muhammad Shah and another v. The State 1993 SCMR 550 my Lord the present Chief Justice of the Pakistan has been pleased to hold that under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is mandatorily bounden duty of the Police Officer to register F.I.R. of a cognizable offence. While in the third case of Mst. Shamim Akhtar v. Fiaz Akhtar and 2 others PLD 1992 SC 211 their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that first information report is generally lodged by a person either who had witnessed the incident or the one who was injured in the incident.

11. Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with information to the police and their powers to investigate. Section 154, Cr.P.C. provides the procedure to be followed on receiving information in cognizable cases and provides that:-- "Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer incharge of police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the (Provincial Government) may prescribe in this behalf." There is absolutely no doubt that whenever an Officer Incharge of a police station receives information disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence he is under a statutory duty to reduce such information into writing and if such information has already been furnished in writing to receive the said information and in either case the information has to be entered in a book to be maintained at every police station and commonly known as the register of first information reports.

12. The officer incharge of a police station cannot refuse to register such information on the ground that the information being given is false. It is the duty of the police to investigate under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the first step necessarily has to be the registration of the first information report. The process of investigation which commences with the recording of the first information report culminates in the final report of the Police Officer under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which says that every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay and specifically provides that where investigation is not completed within a period of 14 days from the date of recording of the first information report under section 154, Cr.P.C. the Officer Incharge of the police station shall, within three days of the expiration of such period, forward to the Magistrate through Public Prosecutor, an interim report in the form prescribed by the Provincial Government stating therein the result of the investigation made until then and the Court shall commence the trial on the basis of such interim report, unless, for reasons to be recorded, the Court decides that the trial should not so commence.

13. Thus, there is no cavil with the proposition that it is the statutory duty of the police to investigate into the commission of a cognizable offence on the basis of a report having been made to that effect. This is the ratio decidendi of the case of Sawant v. S.H.O. Police Station Saddar, Kasur and another reported in PLD 1975 Lah. 733.

14. However, reporting the commission of cognizable offence to the police is not the only method for moving the machinery and the process of the law. Another method is by resorting to section 190, Cr.P.C. which lays down the conditions requisite .for initiation of proceedings and deals with the cognizance of offences by Magistrates. Section 190, Cr.P.C. lays down that:-- "Except as hereinafter provided any District Magistrate or Sub --Divisional Magistrate, and any other Magistrate specifically empowered in this behalf, may take cognizance of any offence:-- (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a report in writing of such facts made by any Police Officer; (c) upon information received from any person other than a Police Officer, or upon his own knowledge or suspicion, that such offence has been committed. (2) The (Provincial Government) or the District Magistrate subject to the general or special orders of the (Provincial Government,) may empower any Magistrate to take cognizance under subsection (1) clause (a) or clause (b), of offences for which he may try or (send to the Court of Session) for trial. (3) A Magistrate taking cognizance under subsection (1) of an offence triable exclusively by a Court of Session shall, without recording any evidence, send the case to the Court of Session for trial). Clause (a) of section 190 gives the second method for the cognizance of an offence which is by way of making a complaint directly to the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and any other Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf. This second method for the initiation of cognizance of offence is commonly known as the making of a private complaint a. distinguish from clause (b) of section 190, Cr.P.C. which empowers the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and any other Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf to take cognizance of any offence upon a report in writing of such facts made by any Police. Officer which is commonly known as a police case.

15. It was for this reason that the Supreme Court of Pakistan held in the case of Jamshed Ahmad v. Muhammad Akram Khan and another reported in 1975 SCMR 149 that the High Court is under no obligation to order the registration of a case especially where the entire evidence to prove the alleged offence is in possession of the complainant, a complaint under section 190(a), Cr.P.C. would be an adequate remedy.

16. In the instant case the first information report has already been lodged and registered vide F.I.R. No.228, dated the 1st of October, 1994, at Police Station City Raiwind, under section 324/337-H(ii)/148/149, P.P.C.

17. However, the grievance of the petitioner is to the effect that the said information report does not reflect the truth and, therefore, the petitioner would have the said first .information report (No.228/94) quashed and substituted by a fresh first information report regarding the same transaction and giving his version of the occurrence.

18. There is no hard and fast rule regarding the registration of a second first information report regarding the same occurrence and cases are not unknown where' there are two first information reports regarding the same transaction and these are commonly known as cross-first information reports. Be that as it may, an order by the High Court to register a second first information report regarding the same transaction is normally not justified. This is the view taken by this Court in the cases of Kaura v. The State reported in 1979 PCr.LJ 521, Ghulam Siddique v. S.H.O. Saddar, Dera Ghazi Khan reported in PLD 1979 Lah. 263, Ramzan v. The-State reported in PLD 1967 Lah. 588 and Mansur Ali and 2 others v. The State reported in 1970 PCr.LJ 287.

19. The principle seems to be that as soon as the commission of a cognizable offence is reported to the police, it is sufficient to begin the process of investigation and it is open to every person during the course of investigation to bring on record his version of the occurrence or transaction. In the instant case it will indeed be open to the petitioner to bring forth his version of the occurrence on record during the course oft investigation.

20. As far as the third prayer of the petitioner which is regarding the appointment of an Investigating Officer of the rank of Deputy Inspector --General of Police, suffice it to say that the process of investigation is generally speaking the inherent right of the police and it is not proper for this Court to interfere in matters of investigation which is out side the purview of this Court. This has been the consistent view of Superior Courts beginning with the case of Emperor v. Khawaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 18, M.S. Khawaja v. The State PLD 1965 SC 287, Shahnaz Begum v. The Honourable Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan and another PLD 1971 SC 677 and Malik Ghulam Ahmad v. Haji Muhammad Yousaf and others PLD 1967 SC 271.

21. For the abovementioned reasons, I find that there is no merit in this I petition which is dismissed. N.H.Q./G-268/L Petition dismissed.