1994 PLP 1736 (MLD)

CH. GHULAM SARWAR, J.

This Intra-Court Appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 arises out of the judgment dated 13-5-1992 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.2803 of 1992.

2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that a case F.I.R. No.211, dated 20-4-1992 under section 324 of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, 1990 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, was registered at Police Station Ferozewala at the instance of one Haji Muhammad Sadiq against Rana Sultan Ali respondent No.2, alongwith Shahbaz alias Bheenda, Sultan alias Naana, Qurban alias Bannan, Nazir alias Jeera and Munir alias Munrii, for committing murderous assault upon the complainant and others, as a result of which Muhammad Akhtar son of the complainant, Dilbar and Zulfiqar Ahmed sustained fire-arm injuries at the hands of the accused persons. This occurrence was also witnessed by one Muhammad Hafeez and Muham Yameen besides Haji Muhammad Sadiq complainant. Rana Sultan Ali one of the -accused mentioned in the abovesaid F,1.11 also made a statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. on 25-41992 before the police that actually he and his companions were injured by the complainant party on 20-4-1992 when they were armed with deadly weapons like' Klashnikov, Mauser, Carbine and 7MM rifles, as a result of which Rana Sultan All received fire-arm injuries, the occurrence stated by Rana Sultan All also related to the same incident for which case F.I.R. No.211 dated 20-4-1992 had been registered so he was directed by the police to join the investigation add also to produce the witnesses in support of his version as stated by him in his statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. According to the police he did not join the investigation nor he produced the witnesses although as per his statement prima facie, the offences under section 324, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance and sections 148 and 149, P.P.C. were made out. When the police did not register a separate case on the ground that the version of Rana Sultan All pertained to the same occurrence so he filed Writ Petition No.3803 of 1992.

3. The learned Single Judge, after calling for the report and hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the Sub-Inspector, Police Station Ferozewala, directed the registration of F.I.R. on the basis of the allegations levelled in the writ petition which prima facie disclosed commission of a cognizable offence against respondents Nos.2 to 8 and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly by order dated 13-5-1992.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants were not provided with an opportunity of being heard although they were party to the writ petition and nor the report submitted by the S.H.O. was appreciated while deciding the writ petition, wherein it was inter alia alleged that Rana Sultan All respondent No.2 was a hardened criminal and had been involved in a number of criminal cases. The precise submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that a case with respect to the alleged occurrence has since been registered, the second F.I.R. regarding the same occurrence was not called for.

5. Section 154, Cr.P.C. does not envisage hearing of the accused by the police officer prior to registration of the case and, therefore, failure to hear the accused has not prejudicially affected any right of the petitioner. It is true that ordinarily once a case is registered in respect of an offence, registration of a second case notwithstanding divergent version contained therein is not called for, inasmuch as, the ball has already been set rolling and, therefore, police is under a statutory duty to trace the real culprits after proper investigation in accordance with law.

6. Be that as it may, here the learned Single Judge, after perusing the material available before him, directed the registration of a case as the allegations leveled in the writ petition and the report submitted by the respondents S.H.O prima facie disclosed commission of the cognizable offence, rather it was admitted that from the statement of Rana Sultan All, a cognizable case under section 324 of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, 1990 and under sections 148 and 149, P.P.C. was made out. Thus, visualised, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge acted illegally in the exercise of his discretion while directing registration of a case warranting interference in these proceedings.

7. Be that as it may, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we direct that after completion of investigation in both the cases, it be heard and disposed of simultaneously by one Court. With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of. N.H.Q./D 38/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? I.C.A. dismissed.