P L D 2001 Karachi 169 (PLP)

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on the case file.

10. It was argued by Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Qazi, learned counsel for the petitioner that under section 154, Cr.P.C. it was mandatory upon incharge of Police Station to register the case of a cognizable offence. According to him Mst. Saeedan was killed by her parents. F.I.R. No-18 of 2000 accusing the petitioner party of murdering their daughter-in-law is false. He relied upon case of Ghunwa Bhutto v. Government of Sindh PLD 1997 Karachi 119 and an unreported decision of Division Bench of this Court in C. P. No. D-1712 of 1999.

11. On the other hand Mr. Ali Nawaz Memon, learned counsel for the proposed accused argued that the deceased Mst. Saeedan was few months before her murder, abducted by the petitioner party and such abduction case F.I.R. No.40 of 1999 was pending trial in Court against the petitioner party.

12. It was further argued that the deceased was already married with her cousin Ali Muhammad son of the respondent Ghulam Mustafa (complainant in F.I.R. No-18 of 2000) and had also given birth to a child who died later. Counsel has referred to such certificate Annexure 'B' in the file. It was contended that after abduction Mashooq Ali of the petitioner party forcibly married with the deceased, as Mashooq Ali is a strong Wadera of the area while Ali Ahmed real husband of the deceased as well as her relatives are poor Haris.

13. It was further argued that in spite of the registration of the case of abduction of the deceased lady by the petitioner party, the deceased could not be secured by police. So, Ali Ahmed filed a Criminal Miscellaneous No.269 of 2000 at Hyderabad Bench, of this Court in which the deceased lady was required to appear. Petitioners knowing that the deceased was not willing to go to them killed her under a plan. Reliance was placed upon:-- (1) 1983 SCMR 436, (2) PLD 1988 Karachi 521, and (3) 1993 PCr.LJ 1056.

14. Mr. Habib Ahmed learned A.A. -G. has opposed the prayer made in the petition and has stated that the petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing B a complaint in the Court.

15. For the purposes of this petition, we need not go into further details.

16. We have perused the comments filed by the S.H.O. of Police Station Jhol and the S.S.P. of the District Sanghar. Both have strongly refuted the contents of the petition and termed the same as wrong and false.

17. We have also gone through the case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties. In the case of Ghanwa Bhutto v. Government of Sindh, it was observed that:-- "In case of a private complaint,, the Magistrate to whom a complaint is made is empowered either to enquire into the case "himself or direct an enquiry or investigation by a police officer or any other person referred to in section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, depending upon the circumstances of each case. Therefore, remedy by way of a private complaint is equally an effective and a practical D remedy and thus, an adequate remedy." In case of Kaura v. The State and others 1983 SCMR 436, it was observed that:- "

5. It appears to us that once the case was registered vide F.I.R. 23 dated 7-2-1976 in respect of the murder of Haji Jewan the registration of a fresh report notwithstanding the divergent version contained therein was not called for inasmuch as the bail had already been set rolling and the Police was not only competent but also duty bound to unearth the true facts and trace the real culprits." In the case of Yousif v. The State PLD 1988 Karachi 521, a Division Bench of this Court, while deciding a criminal appeal observed that:-- "We hold that there was no need or justification for the Investigating Officer to file himself as a complainant second F.I.R. because even without doing so he was quite competent under the law to continue the investigation and arrest persons against whom there was material to connect them with the offence regardless of the fact whether they were named in F.I.R. as accused persons or not. The scope is so wide that the Police Officer can arrest even complainant as an accused person if during the investigation he comes across material and evidence which connects complainant with commission of crime."

18. In view of the above and under the circumstances stated above, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the petitioner. We, therefore, dismiss this petition. H.B.T./G-30/K Petition dismissed.