1. ' In this criminal Miscellaneous application, the applicant has impugned order, dated 9-4-2004 passed by the learned Ilnd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana by which he has refused applicant's application praying for registration of the F.I.R. It seems that the applicant's son has been kidnapped and in this respect he has also gone to Police Station Dokri for registration of the F.I.R.
2. But the police officials did not record his F.I.R. Instead the police official on their own through A.S.-I.
3. Muhammad Ramzan recorded F.I.R. No. 3 of 2004 in which mere suspicion of kidnapping has been made without naming of any of the persons. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has information and knowledge of the person who has kidnapped his son and wants to name them in the F.I.R. But the learned Judge has wrongfully denied him to do so by the impugned order. He has stated that the second F.I.R. Of the incident can be recorded if the complainant has different version with him from that given by the police official in their own F.I.R. In support of his contention he has relied upon the case of Mrs. Ghunwa Bhutto ve. Government of Sindh (PLD 1997 Karachi 119) which is judgment of Division Bench of this Court.
4. I have gone through the judgment and find that after examining particular provision of section 154, Cr.P.C. The Court has found that there is no restriction of number of F.I.Rs. That can be recorded in respect of same offence. The Court in the reported case allowed registration of third F.I.R. Of the same offence. Learned Addl A. G. Has no objection to the grant of this application. This criminal miscellauous application is therefore, granted. The respondents are directed to record the statement of the applicant and if cognizable offence is made out, the F.I.R. May be recorded.
5. ' Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.S.-37 of 2004 stands disposed of.