1997 P Cr (PLP)

Kaura v. The State and others 1983 SCMR 436 rel Malik Farrukh Mehmood for Petitioner. Mohsin Raza Joyia for the State. Malik Muhammad Aslam for Respondents Date of hearing: 18th July, 1995. Due to the dispute of possession of some immovable property an occurrence took place on 9-5-1995 wherein Abdul Ghaffar Fauji son of Fateh Muhammad was murdered and Fateh Muhammad as well as Muhammad Shahbaz P.Ws. were injured. F.I.R. No.200, dated 9-5-1995 stands registered at Police Station Hasilpur under section 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. The accused of the F.I.R. are Liaquat Ali, Muhammad Shafiq alias Bhutto, Tahir Javed, 4 Khalid Javed, Yaqoob Ali, Atta Muhammad, Ghulam Nabi and Abid., During the occurrence Muhammad Shafiq alias Bhutto and Yaqoob Ali were also injured at the hands of the complainant party which fact is mentioned in the F.I.R. Expressing that the version of the accused persons was not being recorded by the police, Atta Muhammad-accused of the aforesaid F.I.R. has filed this writ petition seeking a direction from this Court to the S.H.O., Police Station Hasilpur/respondent No. l for the registration of a case at his instance.

2. This writ petition has been resisted by the State as well as by the complainant party of the aforesaid F.I.R.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Assistant Advocate-General and gone through the record before me. Relying on Allah Ditta and 3 others v. The S.H.O., Police Station Basirpur, District Okara and 3 others PLD 1987 Lah. 300 learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no doubt there is the legal principle that once the F.I.R. is recorded all other information s subsequently supplied can be looked into and no second F.I.R. need be recorded, there are exceptions to the aforesaid principle. According to him the disclosure of other criminal activities would not be called for. Amplification of the first F.I.R. and recording of the two F.I.Rs. or a direction to that effect depends upon the circumstances of each case. He added that all facts newly found, alleged etc. have to be taken into account and the result can be achieved through the registration of the fresh F.I.R. I do not agree with him in the circumstances of this case. The two accused namely Muhammad Shafiq alias Bhutto and Yaqoob Ali are said to have been injured during the occurrence which fact has not been suppressed in the F.I.R. by the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant party of the aforesaid F.I.R. relied on Riaz Ahmad v. The Inspector of Police/Station House Officer, Police Station Baseerpur, District Okara and 4 others 1991 PCr.LJ 6 (Lah.) and argued that in case the petitioner did not feel satisfied with the conclusion of the police reached during the investigation of the case reported by the complainant rejecting the counter version of the occurrence as given by the petitioner, then the efficacious remedy of filing a criminal complaint is available to him. As expressed above the injuries on the persons of Muhammad Shafiq alias Bhutto and Yaqoob Ali accused of the aforesaid F.I.R. have not been suppressed. There is no fresh fact except the version of the accused persons, which has to be considered during the investigation. According to Kaura v. The State and others 1983 SCMR 436 in case of the presence of divergent versions arising out of an F.I.R., the police is not only competent but also duty bound to unearth true facts and trace the real culprits. In this view of the matter the registration of the fresh F.I.R. as desired and required by Atta Muhammad-petitioner/accused of the aforesaid F.I.R. is neither justified nor called for. The version of the accused shall be recorded and taken into account by the Investigating Officer. If the petitioner would feel dissatisfied, the efficacious remedy of filing the private complaint shall be available to him.

4. With my aforesaid observations and findings, this writ petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./A-849/L Petition dismissed.