ORDER SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J. --- Through the instant petition, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner has prayed for passing a direction to respondent No.1 for registration of a criminal case against respondents Nos.2 to 9 for ,the commission of a murder of his son, namely, Nadeem Afzal on 18-2-2010.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner submitted an application to respondent No.1/DPO, Sheikhupura on 22-2-2010, but no case was registered against the accused.
Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application, under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. Whereby the learned Additional 'Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura directed the S41.0. Concerned to record the cross- version of the petitioner in a case arising out of F.I.R. No.172 of 2010, dated 18-2-2010, registered in Police Station, A-Division, Sheikhupura, under section 394, P.P.C. He further submitted that the aforementioned F.I.R. No. 172 of 2010, dated 18-2-2010, was not in respect of the murder of his son, rather, the same was got registered by one Muhammad Arsalan Saleem in respect of the dacoity, alleged to have been committed at his residence by unknown accused, who were injured during the occurrence and died on the spot. He maintained that the said complainant/Muhammad Arsalan Saleem in connivance with the officials of the concerned Police Station has concocted a false story regarding the murder of his son and as such, recording of the cross-version of the present petitioner in the aforementioned F.I.R. Would not serve the ends of justice. Claims that the.
S.H.O. Is -bound to record the statement of the petitioner and if the same disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence, necessary legal proceedings as provided in section 154, Cr.P.C., should have been taken. Adds prior to passing the impugned order, dated 21-6-2010, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura obtained a report from the police, wherein, the S.H.O. Of the concerned Police Station denied the receipt of any application for registration of a case.
3. DPO, Sheikhupura in his report and parawise comments submitted that during a dacoity/robbery, which was committed at the residence Muhammad Arsalan Saleem on 18-2-2010, two dacoits sustained fire-arm injuries and died on the spot while committing robbery. He clarified that the aforementioned two dacoits were identified as Nadeem alias Deemi and Zeshan alias Shani. He further submitted that the investigation of the aforementioned F.I.R. Was completed and the challan was submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction, wherein, three accused were declared as proclaimed offenders, and subsequently, a supplementary challan was also prepared on 18-7-2010 and the same has been sent to the Court of competent jurisdiction through the prosecution branch, DPO, Sheikhupura contended that the petitioner wanted to involve the complainant of the aforementioned F.I.R. And the P.Ws. In the false murder case of his son. He has also mentioned that nine cases were registered against Nadeem alias Deemi/son of the present petitioner, whereas, 13 cases stood registered against the other deceased, namely, Zeshan alias Shani.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. From the contents of the petition as well as the report, submitted by District Police Officer, Sheikhupura, it is established that two persons, namely, Nadeem alias Deemi and Zeehan alias Shani died on 18-2-2010. The contention of the petitioner is that the said two persons were murdered by the present respondents Nos.2 to 9. On the other hand, District Police Officer, Sheikhupura contended that the above mentioned two persons died on the spot, while they were committing a robbery, due to the injuries sustained by them by the firing of their accomplice. No doubt, an F.I.R. Bearing. No.172 of 2010, dated 18-2-2010, stand registered in Police Station, A-Division, Sheikhupura under sections 302/394, P.P.C. Read with section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, on the complaint of one Muhammad Arsalan Saleem, wherein, there is no allegation of the commission of murder of Nadeem alias Deemi and Zeshan alias Shani. In fact, the athre mentioned F.I.R. Is against unknown accused, who allegedly entered the house of the said Muhammad Arsalan for committing robbery. However, during the investigation of the aforementioned F.I.R., i.e., No.172 of 2010, the robbers, who had died on the spot while committing robbery, were identified as Nadeem alias Deemi and Zeshan alias Shani. Hence, it cannot be considered that the aforementioned F.I.R.
Is in respect of an occurrence, wherein, the son of the petitioner, namely, Nadeem alias Deemi and another person, namely, Zeshan alias Shani were killed. There are two different complainants of an occurrence with two completely different versions. In the case of Ahmad Yar v. Station House Officer, Shah Kot, District Sahiwal and 8 others (2007 PCr.LJ 1352), it has been held that there is no embargo against registration of second F.I.R. In respect of different version given by the aggrieved party of the same occurrence. Similarly, it has been held in the case of Mst. Anwar Begum v. Station House Officer, Police Station Kaki West, Karachi and 12 others (PLD 2005 Supreme Court 297) that a complainant is justified to seek registration of another F.I.R. As per his on version. It has been further observed that if an information given to a police officer, which discloses the commission of a different cognizable offence, then unless, it is mere amplification of the first version, must be recorded by the police.
6. For the foregoing reasons, District Police Officer, Sheikhupura is directed to record the statement of the present petitioner and if the same disclosed the commission of a different cognizable offence as compared to the offence, regarding which the F.I.R. No.172 of 2010, dated 18-2-201Q ' has already been registered, then he should proceed under section 154, Cr.P.C. And register a second F.I.R. The instant petition is accordingly disposed of.