' On the report of Mst. Sofia Begum (respondent No,2) a case vide F.I.R. No,247 of 2004 was registered at Police Station, Mochi Gate under section 302, P.P.C. For the murder of her husband Mian Muhammad Abbas. She disclosed in the F.I.R. That on 4-10-2004 at 5-00 p.m. She had gone to her husband's Property Dealer's shop where apart from her husband Mian Muhammad Abbas, her sons Wajid Ilyas and Zahid Ilyas were also present. Zahid Ilyas was quarrelling with her husband on account of some money dispute. Within her sight Zahid Ilyas pulled out a pistol and made straight firing at her husband who fell down and succumbed to his injures.
2. The petitioner Umer Hayat Sajjad is a real brother of the deceased. He has an entirely different story to tell which according to him led to the murder of his brother. In this connection he filed a detailed application to the S.H.O. Praying therein for registration of a case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complaint made by the petitioner to S.H.O., Police Station, Mochi Gate disclosed commission of a cognizable offence and that the said complaint was not merely a counter-version by way of defence but was a grievance into itself; that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case registration of a separate case is called for inasmuch as merely associating the persons nominated by the petitioner in his complaint to the S.H.O. In the existing F.I.R. Will not meet the ends of justice. He referred to the case of "Muhammad Ishaque v. S.S.P., Jaffarabad and another" PLJ 1998 Quetta-1, "Imtiaz Ali v. District Police Officer and others" 2004 PCr.LJ 470 to contend that recording of second F.I.R. Is permissible.
4. Ch. Ghulam Murtaza, Advocate who has appeared for respondents Nos.4 and 5 opposed the issuance of direction for registration of a case, as according to him the facts and circumstances of this particular case do not warrant registration of a separate case and that the petitioner could be joined in investigation and his version whether it is by way of defence or whether it spells out an independent grievance can be recorded by the Investigating Officer who can legitimately investigate the same.
5. The learned Addl. Advocate-General submitted that prima facie the complaint lodged by the petitioner does make out commission of a cognizable offence and that since the version of the petitioner and that of the complainant of the F.I.R. Are at complete variance, therefore, associating the petitioner and the persons nominated in his complaint in the existing F.I.R. May not fully serve the purpose of investigation. He did not oppose the prayer for registration of a separate F.I.R.
6. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the application moved by the present petitioner which is annex 'A' with this petition reveals that Wajid Ilyas and Zahid Ilyas whose names have been mentioned in the F.I.R. Were not the real sons of the deceased. Apart from the said two sons the other children of the complainant were Shahid Ilyas and two daughters who were minors; that the deceased's brother Muhammad Iylas died in the year 1981 whereafter the complainant's Nikah had been solemnized with the deceased. It is also stated in the complaint that since there was no offspring from his marriage with Mst. Safia Begum the deceased Muhammad Abbas had decided to remarry which decision had angered not only his wife but also her sons and they had also issued threats of serious consequences. According to the petitioner the occurrence in which the deceased had been done to death had been witnessed by certain eye-witnesses whose names have been mentioned in the complaint. A comparison of the two stories the one narrated in the F.I.R. And the other as contained in the complaint of the petitioner show that they are diametrically opposed to each other. In this situation I tend to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate-General that merely associating the petitioner in the investigative process may not serve the purpose for which the F.I.R. Is recorded. It must be kept in mind that the purpose of recording the F.I.R. Apart from setting the criminal law into motion is also to provide a sound basis for carrying out investigation in the right direction. In this connection I would like to refer to the case of " Mst. Pari v. S.H.O., Police Station `A' Section, Sukkur and another NLR 1997 Criminal 655 wherein a Division Bench of the Honourable Sindh High Cort seized of a somewhat similar matter inter alia observed as under:-- 'It is true that ordinarily a second of the same incident is not registered. However, in this case the F.I.R. Said to have been registered at the instance of the petitioner is completely disowned by her and- if allowed to stand as her version of the incident would undoubtedly have adverse effect on the case as set out by her in her petition. There is no cavil that one of the purposes of F.I.R. Is to give :information of a cognizable offence and to set the law into motion. The other purpose is to provide a reliable base for initiation of investigation of the crime in the right direction, but this would be pOssible only if the F.I.R. Is recorded truthfully in accordance with the information provided by the informant, moreso when the informant is also an eye-witness."
' The case of "Wajid Ali Khan Durani and others v. Government of Sindh and others 2001 SCM R 1556" may also be referred with advantage. In the said case the widow of the deceased was not satisfied with the two previously registered F.I.Rs, on the plea that the said F.I.Rs, did not reflect the true facts and suspected that the first F.I.R. Had been recorded at the instance of the Police Officer who was himself an accused in the case. The Honourable Supreme Court held that if information subsequently given to a police officer which disclosed a different offence, cognizable by the police, then unless it was mere amplification of the first version, it must be recorded by the police. The Honourable Apex Court held that if true facts in respect of an occurrence were not reflected by the two earlier F.I.Rs,, the refusal to record a genuine version of the same occurrence would not be justified.
7. I would not like to make detailed comments on the veracity of the stories as unfolded in the F.I.R.
And as set out in the complaint made by the petitioner lest it prejudices the case of any of the sides. Suffice it to say that since the complaint of the petitioner contains an independent grievance, therefore, by allowing this petition I direct S.H.O., Police Station, Mochi Gate (respondent No,1) who is personally present in the Court to immediately register an F.I.R. On the complaint of the petitioner. The complainant/petitioner shall accompany the S.H.O. To get his statement recorded on the basis of which the F.I.R. Will be registered. After registration of the F.I.R., the investigation shall immediately be taken over by the Provincial Investigation Wing and the Additional I.G. Police, who is the Incharge of the said Wing shall entrust the same to an honest and upright police officer not below the rank of D.S.P.
8. Before parting with this order the learned counsel for respondents Nos.4 and 5 pointed out that this order might prejudice the said respondents as the Investigating Officer may construe it as a direction to challan them in the case. I take this opportunity to make it abundantly clear that this order is not designed to get any particular individual declared as guilty or to be necessarily challaned. The purpose of this order is to probe the death of an innocent person who has been blasted to death and to bring the actual culprits to book.
9. This petition is allowed in the above terms. There will be, however, no order as to the costs.