' JAMSHED RAHMAT ULLAH, J.--- The petitioner through this constitutional petition has called in question the order, dated 27-3-2009 passed by learned Justice of Peace, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Was dismissed.
2. Precisely, the facts as stated in the petition are that the petitioner filed a petition under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Before the Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal/respondent No,7 contending that the petitioner is resident of Chak No,73/D, Pakpattan Sharif and is an employee in a garment factory at Lahore. A month earlier, the petitioner went to Lahore in connection with his job. In absence of the petitioner, his sister-in-law Mst. Safia Bibi/respondent No,6 came to his house and after enticing his wife brought her to Kameer along with the children, where respondents Nos.3 to 5 remained pursuing her, for having a marriage with the petitioner dissolved. This fact was conveyed to the petitioner on telephone by his wife Mst. Snoober Bibi. As per contents of the petition on 7-3-2009 at 8-00 p.m. Haji Muhammad Inayat son of Ibrahim and Muhammad Iqbal son of Inayat, on hearing hue and cry from the house of Ashraf went there and saw that Ghulam Abbas had fallen Snober Bibi on the ground by catching her legs, while Ashraf inflicted hatchet blow on neck of Snobar Bibi. Ashraf and Ghulam Mujtaba gave successive blows of hatchets on Snobar Bibi, which hit on her arms and shoulders. The witnesses tried to restrain the accused, but the accused stopped them by saying that it is there domestic affair and they should go away and better not interfere. Mst. Sanobar Bibi died at the spot. One Haji Muhammad Inayat informed the petitioner about the said occurrence, who immediately proceeded to Kameer and when he reached at 2-00 a.m. At Sahiwal, Haji Inayat rang to the petitioner, informing that he should not come to Kameer, as Ghulam Mujtaba has got registered a criminal case against the petitioner and his brother Saeed. Upon receiving the said information, the petitioner went to his house Chak No,73/D, Pakpattan Sharif. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before respondents Nos.1 and 2 i.e. District Police Officer, Sahiwal and S.H.O. Police Station Kameer, respectively, but no action was taken on the application of the petitioner. Then the petitioner filed petition before the Justice of Peace for registration of criminal case. The S.H.O. Respondent No,2 filed his comments and the Justice of Peace respondent No,7 dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under section 22- A, Cr.P.C.
3. Reamed counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Justice of Peace has failed to take into consideration the actual facts of the incident, and has also ignored, as to how respondents Nos.3 to 6 mercilessly killed the wife of the petitioner. Further contends that the learned Justice of Peace has failed to peruse the record and failed to note that as per investigation of the police, Muhammad Ashraf has been found guilty of the offence, while the present petitioner and his brother Saeed has been declared innocent. Lastly, contends that reasoning of the learned Justice of Peace for not registering the second F.I.R. Is clear cut violation of the law laid down in this regard.
4. On the other hand, the learned 'counsel for respondents Nos.3 to 6 contends that the petitioner has a remedy of private complaint. Further contends that instead of registration of second F.I.R. Of the same occurrence, a counter-version under section 342, Cr.P.C. Is more appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. As a result of the discussion I am of the view that there are two points which needs consideration.
Firstly, whether the petitioner through the instant petition could invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, especially when the remedy of private complaint is available to him. Secondly, whether the grievance of the petitioner could be edressed by bringing on record the counter- version, instead filing second F.I.R.
7. Firstly, I take up the question of jurisdiction. No doubt, exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is discretionary with this Court, but according to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, the discretionary powers must be exercised in good faith, justly and reasonably, having regard to all the relevant circumstances.
While examining the present case and in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
I am of the view that the instant petition should have been entertained, instead of disposing it of on technical grounds. Now, coming to the question of the registration of the second F.I.R., I cannot ignore the circumstances of this case where the accused appears to have mercilessly killed the wife of the petitioner and at the same time has cleverly become a complainant. Ghulam Mujtaba respondent No,4 has implicated the petitioner and his brother Saeed in case F.I.R. No,62 of 2009, alleging that they have killed Mst. Sanober Bibi. In this case, it cannot be ignored that the matter has been investigated and after B thorough probe, the Investigating Officer has declared the petitioner and his brother Saeed innocent, whereas, Ghulam Mujtaba, Muhammad Ashraf and others have been found guilty for the murder of Mst. Sanober Bibi. It is a settled principle of law that there is no bar for the registration of second F.I.R. Especially in a case where the complainant is suspected of being accused. Reliance can be placed to the cases of PLD 2008 Lah. 222, PLD 2006 SC 297 and 2001 SCM R 1556. The narration of the two versions in the present case shows that both are distinct from each other and version of the petitioner cannot be treated as an amplification of the version of the complainant, of F.I.R. No,62 of 2009. It can safely be said that no bar exists in lying information one after the other to be recorded as F.I.R., when there is a disclosure of a different criminal activity.
8. In view of the above reasons and as a result of foregoing discussions the order, dated 27-3-2009 of the Justice of Peace/respondent No,7 is hereby set aside and respondent No,2 is hereby directed to register an F.I.R. On the complaint of the petitioner. However, the Investigating Officer is directed to investigate the second F.I.R. Without being influenced or prejudiced from this order. He is further directed to adhere to the requirements and mandate of provisions of Rule 25.2 of Police Rules, 1934.
This writ petition is allowed in the above terms.