' On 9-2-2004, an application under section 22-A of the Cr.P.C. Moved by Rana Shahid Farooq before the learned Sessions Judge, was entrusted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur. The application had contained three prayers:
(i) For registration of an F.I.R.; or
(ii) Recording of cross-version; and
(iii) Entrustment of investigation to any other honest police officer.
2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge called for the comments, which were submitted by the S.I./S.H.O. On 18-2-2004. On 19-2-2004 learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the impugned order and directed the police to register the second version of the petitioner through an F.I.R.
3. Aggrieved from this order dated 19-2-2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner who was respondent in the aforesaid petition has filed the instant writ petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the respondent had not approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge with clean hands. It has further been contended that there was no record before the learned Additional Sessions Judge to order the registration of second F.I.R. To augment his arguments, learned counsel has submitted that the respondent who had filed the application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge was an absconder and was not entitled to get the registration of the F.I.R. He has further argued that the second F.I.R. Cannot be registered with regard to the same occurrence and has relied upon 1979 Pakistan Criminal Law Jouranl 521 (Kaura v. The State); PLD 1979 Lahore 263 (Ghulam Siddique v.
Station House Officer, Saddar, Dera Ghazi Khan and 8 others).
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent (Rana Shahid Farooq) has opposed the substance of writ petition on the ground that Muhammad Asghar and Khalil-ur-Rehman had got only blunt weapon injuries as per report of Doctor but in the F.I.R. Which was got registered by the writ petitioner, he had noted the injuries to have been caused through fire-arm. The learned counsel has stated forcefully that the second F.I.R. Was not prohibited. He has referred to 2003 YLR 1834 (Shehzad Ahmed Cheema v. SSP, Gujranwala and others), To support his arguments he has also relied upon 2001 SCMR 1556 (Wajid Ali Khan Durani and others v. Government of Sindh and others). As per learned counsel, although the statement of Rana Shahid Farooq was got recorded on 3-3-2004 under section 161 by the police during the investigation yet the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Jude was not complied with in its letter and spirit, and second F.I.R. Was not registered by the concerned S.H.O. The learned counsel has also pleaded that Muhammad Rafique was an injured person who had got fire-arm injuries but this aspect was not brought in the first F.I.R., therefore, second F.I.R. Was the requirement of the case. Learned counsel has also defended the order by contending that the order impugned has been passed with jurisdiction, therefore, it cannot be set aside in this jurisdiction.
6.I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel and have perused the record.
7.There is no denial to the fact that second F.I.R. Can be registered for an occurrence. Rule is settled that there is no such prohibition in the law yet every case has to proceed on its own circumstances and facts. The purpose and intent to inform the police is to activate the police to proceed and investigate into the occurrence. The investigation of the police should not ordinarily be stopped and stayed, till it is essential due to some exceptional circumstances, is also established rule. The collection of evidence, in the shape of statement of witnesses recorded, documents received, and all other matters incidental, ancillary or necessary to the investigation, is within the power of the police, which it has to exercise during its investigation of the reported occurrence, and has to be judged by the police. In this process, the police has to record the version of the accused and has to test its falsity or correctness. If the police finds that the occurrence was not correct and truly reported, and that there was any other method/manner of commission of occurrence or there was some other offender or person, guilty of the offence who had committed the offence(s) as noted or reported in the F.I.R., the police is not powerless to form its independent opinion and to forward that report with regard to the real culprits, and the method used and the manner of the commission of offences, under section 173 of the Cr.P.C. To the competent Court. So, in the above-noted scenario, the question arises as to whether there remain need for recording of another F.I.R. Or not? When the version of the accused can easily and truly be recorded and brought on record, then in my opinion there is no need of registration of the second F.I.R. There may be some cases of exceptional nature in which it would be necessary to record second F.I.R. But in all and in every case, this course cannot be adopted. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for this. As in all occurrences, the version of a party can be countered by the other party with new, counter or cross version as regard to the commission of an offence, so in the same way, in all cases, registration of second F.I.R. Is not the requirement of law. There must be some strong and sound reasons behind the order to direct the police to record a second F.I.R. The reasons brought forward by the learned counsel for respondent No.4 is that Muhammad Rafique had got fire-arm injuries and the injuries inflicted upon Asghar and Khalil-ur-Rehinan were not to be of such nature but were found to have been caused by blunt weapons as per medical report. Whether this fact itself can be considered and made the reason to order another F.I.R. I am not in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent in this regard. Every fact of difference does not entail the registration of second F.I.R.
The versions can be different and must be recorded by the police but not necessarily through the second F.I.R. In each and every case. Version of the respondent has already been recorded on 3-3- 2004 as admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent himself. So, it was now duty of the police to collect evidence from the parties, and to record the statements of both the parties' witnesses and to examine as to whether the version contained in the F.I.R. Or stated by Rana Shahid Farooq in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C., which of two was correct? The birth of occurrence is admitted by both the parties. The difference has occurred as to the manner of the commission of the offence, and who was the aggressor, this opinion has to be formed by the police during its investigation. So, this cannot in my humble opinion be a ground to order the recording of second F.I.R. If each and every fact is differed or contradicted and is to be recorded in the shape of F.I.R, it would not remain the first information report and would lose its worth. So, the respondent was in fact cognizant of this legal aspect, therefore, he had made in his application three prayers, which contained the recording of version also. The exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Court below was not in accordance with law. The impugned order had not contained the reasons as to why the second F.I.R. Was necessitated in the facts and circumstances. Accordingly, I accept this writ petition and consequently hold the impugned order to'be an illegal and without lawful authority.
However, the police is directed to investigate the case and to form his opinion independently as to the aggressor and oppressed and of those persons who were real culprits, after thorough probe and honest investigation, and to submit his report under section 173, Cr.P.C., to the competent Court. With these observations, the writ is disposed of.