2012 P Cr (PLP)

MEHMOOD MAQBOOL BAJWA, J.

Seeks quashmeht of F..I.R. No.47 of 2011 registered under section 324 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860) in pursuance of order dated 10-1-2011 recorded by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Jaranwala on the ground that Report registered at the instance of respondent No.3 is second in series regarding which occurrence, case F. I. P No.772 of 2010 was already registered on the complaint of Muhammad Akram, S.-I. under sections 324, 285 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 against present petitioner.

2. Heard adversaries and perused the record.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that on 2-12-2010 there was marriage ceremony of ,one Faryad Ali in Chak No.35/G.B, in which firing was made by the petitioner resulting in sustaining of injuries by Muhammad Asif (son of respondent No.3), Tayyab Ali and Ali Raza. Muhammad Akram S.-I Police Station Satiana, who along with police party was on patrolling at Adda Chak No.34/G.B after hearing the reports of firing went to the place of occurrence and on his complaint, case F.I.R. No.772 of 2010 was registered. 3(sic.). Groused that after three Weeks of registration of case respondent No.3, father of Muhammad Asif (one of injured) appearec before the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace by making an application under section 22-A of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and whilh twisting the facts with malice in fact, procured order dated 10-1-2011 fly registration of case and in pursuance of said order, case F.I.R. No.47 o 2011 was registered against the petitioner and two unknown persons Making comparison of both the Reports, it was contended that altogether new and contradictory version was introduced at the instance o: respondent No.3 having previous rivalry and enmity. Contended tha since first F.I.R. was registered regarding the occurrence and that to( based on facts, therefore, order regarding registration of second F.I.R, is nullity in the eye of law and F.I.R. No. 47 of 2011 i, required to be quashed.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 maintained that present petitioner having close liaison with Muhammad Akram; S.-I. got a case registered bearing F.I.R. No.772 by distorting the facts and knitting the story regarding aerial firing in marriage ceremony though in fact on 2-12-2010 at 3-15 p.m. his son Asif with one Ali Raza were intercepted by petitioner and his associates and the petitioner made firing aiming at his son causing injuries on his forehead and legs. Maintained that respondent No.3 after getting knowledge regarding the registration of first FIR., approached local police appraising real facts and inaction prompted him to invoke the jurisdiction of learned EX-Officio Justice of Peace for redressal of his grievance and as such no exception can be taken to the order impugned. Submitting arguments, on legal premises it was contended that there is no legal bar regarding registration of second F.I.R.

5. Question for consideration is whether in the given circumstances, order regarding registration of second F.I.R. (bearing No.47 of 2011) is nullity in the eye of law and as such F.I.R. is required to be quashed.

6. Text of section 154 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 suggests that if oral information regarding commission of a cognizable offence is communicated to an Officer Incharge of Police Station, it shall be reduced into writing by him or under his direction and be read over to the informant. No line of distinction and demarcation has been made in the said provision of law putting embargo to lay information before police even after the registration of first Report regarding the same occurrence.

7. Perusal of accusation contained in both the Reports suggests that it is a case of two versions. Firstly, introduced by Muhammad Akram, S.-I. being complainant of F.I.R. No.772 of 2010 suggesting that son of respondent No.3 sustained injuries due to aerial firing made by the petitioner in the marriage ceremony of one Faryad Ali. Second version was introduced by respondent No.3, father of Muhammad Asif (injured) suggesting altogether different version with reference to date, time and venue of occurrence, attributing direct firing to the petitioner aiming at his son due to previous rivalry and enmity.

8. In view of the matter, version introduced at the instance of respondent No.3, entirely gives a different version suggesting commission of cognizable offence in the manner and style highlighted in the application under section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. As the stance taken by respondent No.3 is not an elaboration, explanation or amplification of first F.I.R., therefore, there is no legal bar to issue direction for registration of second F.I.R. I am fortified in my view by law laid down in "WAJID ALI KHAN DURRANI and others v. GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others (PLD 1997 Karachi 119); RANA GHULAM MUSTAFA v. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, Police Station, Civil Line, Lahore and 2 others (PLD 2008 Lahore 110); RAHAT JAVAID v. DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER, NANKANA SAHIB and 6 others (2010 PCr.LJ 1629) and MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN and others v. THE STATE (2011 SCMR 45).

9. Pursuant to above discussion, order for registration of second F.I.R. made on the application of respondent No.3 is hardly subject to any exception and consequently question of quashment of F.I.R. No.47 of 2011 does not arise at all resulting in dismissal of petition. N.H.Q./M-367/L Petition dismissed.