2005 PLP 702 (YLR)

(i) Whether a report entered in shape of an F.I.R. can be quashed when the imparting of the information is denied by the informant? (ii) Whether a second F.I.R, can be directed to be registered? (iii) Whether extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked?

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that the occurrence as contained in the F.I.R. No. 203 of 2003 was not reported to the police by the petitioner, and the S.‑I./S.H.O. had himself entered that story only to grant benefit to the accused persons with whom he had already got alleged collusion. To give force to his arguments, he has referred to a note at the tail end of the aforesaid F.I.R., in which it has been remarked by Ghulam Dastgir, S.‑I./S.H.O. of Police Station Marot that Imtiaz Ali had denied to sign on the first information report. So, according to the learned counsel, this F.I.R. may be quashed and the second F.I.R. be directed to be entered in the prescribed register, in accordance with the application of the writ petitioner attached as Annexure‑A, to this writ petition. Supporting his contention through the citations as to whether a second F.I.R. can be registered, learned counsel has referred to 2001 SCMR 1556 (Wajid Ali Khan Durrani and others v. Government of Sindh and others). He has also referred to PLD 1999 Lahore 50 (Muhammad Anwar, Sub‑Inspector, Railway Police, Lahore v. Station House Officer, Railway Police, Kasur and 2 others) and PLD 1999 Lahore 39 (Mulazim Hussain, Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station Waris Khan, Rawalpindi and another v. Maulana Abdul Jalil). Learned counsel has further augmented his arguments by referring to PLD 1972 Lahore 493 (M. Anwar, Barrister‑at‑Law v. The Station House Officer, Civil Lines Police Station, Lahore and another), a Full Bench authority from the jurisdiction of this Court. To support his contention, he has submitted that information lodged was correct or not depends upon the investigation of Police Officer, who had to conduct it under section 157, Cr.P.C.; and that there was no bar for the registration of second F.I.R. He has also cited PLJ 1998 Quetta 1 (Muhammad Ishaque v. S.P., Jaffarabad and another) in which it has been expounded that the word `shall' used in section 154, Cr.P.C. gives no option to Incharge Police Officer of a Police Station to refuse to record the information, if reported with regard to a case of commission of a cognizable offence. As per learned counsel, the police was under bounded duty to register counter‑version of the petitioner through a separate F.I. R. In another ruling reported in 2000 YLR 1591 (Abbas Ali v. The State and another), the registration of second F.I.R. was ordered. 1997 MLD 1527 (Muhammad Ilyas v. S.H.O. P.S. Baddomalhi; District Narowal and 3 others) was referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, to boost up his reasoning, in which S.H.O. was directed to register a case on the written complaint of the petitioner according to his version.

4. Refuting the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents (Mr. A.R. Tayyib, Advocate) has argued that the statement of Imtiaz Ali, petitioner was recorded by Ghulam Dastgir, S.‑I./S.H.O. on a plain paper which was signed by aforesaid Imtiaz Ali after he had narrated the story of occurrence to S.‑I./S.H.O. But at the time of recording of the statement through the formal F.I.R. No. 203 of 2003 which was reproduced in the register maintained for that purpose, Imtiaz Ali had refused to put his signatures on formal F.I.R., and that the signature upon the formal F.I.R. was not necessary and the refusal of Imtiaz Ali could not affect adversely the first information report, made by Imtiaz Ali. He has further submitted that the petitioner has got another alternate remedy of filing of private complaint in the Court of competent jurisdiction and the written application now being submitted for getting it registered as an F.I.R. is an after thought version by the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled to get the F.I.R. quashed, or second F.I.R. registered according to his written application. He has referred to 1988 PCr.LJ 986 (Malik Muhammad Anwar Khan v. The State and 4 others), in which registration of another report was refused when the police had started investigation in a case. He has also placed reliance upon ruling reported as 1994 MLD 1736 (Dilbar Hussain and others v. Riasat Javed Bajwa, S.H.O., Ferozewala and others). Learned counsel has also put reliance on 1983 SCMR 436 (Kaura v. The State and others). Learned counsel has submitted that according to the authority, registration of second F.I.R. was held to be uncalled for notwithstanding divergent versions contained therein were being reported. Learned A.A.‑G. appearing on behalf of the State has also supported the case of the respondents.

5. After being learned counsel for both the parties as well as the learned A.A.‑G. on the subject, the case has become very difficult as both the parties are insisting upon their prayers and sticking to their version. I had suggested both the parties that the writing, is appended to this writ petition as Annex‑A if be recorded by the police as supplementary statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. but the petitioner and the respondents are not ready to accept this suggestion.

6. As both the parties are cleaving to their version, it has become a case of two versions i.e. (sic) police versus an informant' Therefore, it is essential that both these versions should remain on the record and it would be open to the Court to decide as to which of the version was reported correctly by the informant. At this stage, any verdict from this Court would prejudice the case of either party. So the matter is left open for adjudication by a competent Court. I have knowingly avoided to decide this controversy as it falls within the realm of facial inquiry of the case. Accordingly, I consider it appropriate that the quashment of the F.I.R. already recorded by the police would deprive the Investigating Agency as well as the persons involved in it or in the second F.I.R. from its beneficial use. The learned Court and the parties shall be at liberty to prove the truth or falsehood 'of the earlier and the 'instant F.I.R. and the fact that the earlier F.I.R. was also got registered by the petitioner or not. It will be an immature and premature judgment if the F.I.R. already recorded be considered to be correct version from the mouth of informant, which has been recorded by the Police. The truth and veracity of the version recorded in the F.I.R. would be thrashed out not only during the investigation yet in the Court of law also. There is no cavil to the proposition that after registration of an F.I.R., ordinarily no second F.I.R. can be registered thereafter but from the rulings cited above, the preponderance has been found otherwise. There are instances where the Court had resolved this issue by directing registration of the second F.I.R.

7. While enacting law of section 154, Cr.P.C. and the other sections thereafter, the aim, object and purpose of these can be summarized in the following words:‑‑ "By laying an information law is set in motion, and the police comes into action, sites are inspected, persons are interrogated, statements are recorded, evidence is collected, accused are arrested, innocents are discharged while guilty are sent up to the Court concerned to face the trial. This is the history of law on this subject."

8. The truth or falsehood comes out after the investigation of an occurrence is reported by an informant. In fact, after the recording of the first information report, the investigating agency gets on account of the commission of the offence. A line of action is given to the police. Whether the information is ingenuine, mala fide, with ulterior motive or untrue has to be explored by the police and if found tainted with falsehood, the action under section 182, P.P.C. and under other penal sections of the P.P.C. has to be taken by the police against the informant. In other words, the distortion of real facts or misrepresentation of it has to fetch the penalty for the informant. In the instant case, if the learned Court seized of the case, comes to the conclusion, of course, after grant of opportunity of hearing, that the first information was in fact reported by the petitioner, or the second information was incorrect, in such an event, it would be at liberty to initiate the strict action against the complainant as provided by law. So, for fixing the responsibility and to investigate both the reports, I consider it proper and necessary to direct the police to record the second F.I.R. as reported by the petitioner in his writing and to investigate both these versions as earlier reported and in the second F.I.R. as is now being got registered by the petitioner through this writ petition. It may be clarified that the version contained in both these F.I.Rs. would be open to investigation by the police and the police would be at liberty to report its conclusions under section 173, Cr.P.C. to the learned competent Court of law.

9. So my conclusions are that:‑‑ (i) There is no statutory bar in any section provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure that a second F.I.R. cannot be registered by the Police. In fact, the property demands that there should be only one first information report to move the police, and it has been developed from the interpretation of the wording of section 154, Cr.P.C. by the superior Courts and the different course can only be adopted in exceptional circum stances by the order of the superior Courts, as noted in the above referred ruling, presented by the learned counsel for the petitioner. (ii) In the multi facets versions, especially when the first version having been reported is denied, the latter version can be taken into consideration through its registration to fix the responsibility upon the informant. (iii) In cases of recovery of weapons of offence, articles of theft/robbery/dacoity or any such necessity when the police action is found necessary in a case, the complaint would not be an efficacious or effective remedy. So the above questions are answered in the above terms.

10. As the local police has been castigated with favouritism to a party, therefore, the District Police Officer, Bahawalnagar is directed to get the matter investigated by an officer of renowned integrity and honesty, so that fair investigation, conclusion and opinions come into existence. Both the parties would have discretion to present the veracity of their cases at the investigation stage and in trial of the case. I have knowingly avoided to discuss the merits and demerits, pros and cons of the versions of both the parties, lest it may prejudice the case of either party at the stage of investigation or the trial. With these observations and directions the writ petition is, disposed of. H.B.T./I‑64/L Order accordingly.