In this appeal, the learned counsel has called in question order of the learned Single Bench of this Court dated 15.7.2003 passed in Writ Petition No, 2289/02. In the said order learned Single Bench held that:- "It shall meet the ends of justice to entrust the investigation of the entire occurrence to a senior officer in F.I.A who shall not be fess than the rank of a Director F.I.A. who shall examine the version of both the parties, independently and impartially after giving full opportunity to the parties to produce oral and documentary evidence in support of its version. The said investigation shall be concluded positively within three months and alongwith other findings it shall also recommend whether a separate F.I.R. in line with one as contended by the petitioner is liable to be registered.
2. In the occurrence, subject-matter of this appeal, two persons namely Haq Nawaz and Muhammad Latif lost their lives and five other were seriously injured. The grievance of the appellant is that existing F.I.R. No, 221/02, dated 29.7.2002 does not reflect the true account of the occurrence.
3. It may also be pointed out that an inquiry was also conducted by the District and Sessions Judge, Islamabad in this matter. In the said inquiry report, it was recommended that the investigation may be conducted by another agency instead of Islamabad police. It seems from the impugned order that this recommendation was approved and got favour from the learned Single Bench.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their respective arguments.
5. We are afraid under the FIA Act, 1974, the FIA was not competent to investigate F.I.R. No, 221/02 as offences mentioned in the F.I.R. were not included in the Schedule on the date impugned order was passed i,e, 15.7.2003. The Schedule was amended on 18,8.2004 and now Section 302 stands included. Likewise, inquiry prior to registration of an F.I.R. is not contemplated under the provisions of the Code. This point has been resolved repeatedly by the Superior Courts of this country. In this regard, reference may be made to PLD 2005 Labor 470 and PLD 2007 SC 539.
6. Similarly, it has been repeatedly held by Superior Courts of the country that where a different, opposite or a cross version is put forth by the complainant which disclose commission of cognizable offence, second F.I.R. is not barred. In this regard, reference may be made to PLD 1978 Lahore 187 and Miss Ghaizwa Bhuttoo and others vs. Government of Sindh and others, PLD 1997 Karachi 119.
7. In view of the above discussion and forgoing reasons, we direct SHO of the concerned police station to register-second F.I.R. on the complaint of the appellant. It is further directed that investigation shall be conducted by the local police instead of FIA as required under the Police Order.' 2002. The I.O. shall take into account the mandate and provision of Rule 25.2 of the Police Rules, 1934 This ICA is allowed in the above terms.