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/S.H.O., Police Station, Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh to register a second F.I.R. According to the contents of the petitioner's application. The petitioner has also prayed for passing a direction to respondent No.1 to add the relevant provision of law made out from the allegations levelled by the petitioner.
2. Briefly, the facts leading to the institution of the instant petition are that the present petitioner submitted an application to the S.H.O., Police Station, Sadar Gojra, Toba Tek Singh, for registration of a criminal case against Manzoor Ahmed Khokhar, Ahmed Sher, Sadi Ahmed and two unknown persons for an occurrence in which the complainant and his son were abducted by the accused person for ransom and they were released by the accused persons after receiving ransom of Rs,600,000. Failing to get registered case against the accused, the petitioner filed a petition under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. And got the order dated 9-7-2010, pursuant to which F.I.R. No543, dated 31-8-2010, under section 342, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station, Gojra, Toba Tek Singh. As per the petitioner, the aforesaid F.I.R. Does not reflect the allegations levelled by him in his application. Hence, the instant petition seeking registration of second F.I.R. Containing the offences made out from the application of the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the accused being police officials, the concerned police with mala fide intention and ulterior motive did not record the correct version of the complainant as stated in the application for registration of the case and to bring on record the correct version of the petitioner, ordering second F.I.R. Would be in the interest of justice. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Wajid Ali Khan Durani and others v. Government of Sindh and others (2001 SCM R 1556) and Rana Ghulam Mustafa v. Station House Officer, Police Station, Civil Line, Lahore and 2 others (PLD 2008 Lahore 110). Further contends that the present F.I.R. Also lacks incorporation of relevant offences, which are constituted from the allegations levelled by the petitioner.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab submitted that F.I.R. No543 of 2010 has been recorded as per the contents of the application of the petitioner and there is no mala fide on the part of the police in registration of the F.I.R. And that there is no need to register second F.I.R. Of the same occurrence. Further contended that this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot order deletion or addition of any offence in the F.I.R. And it is for the trial Court to frame charge and conduct trial under the offences constituted from the contents of the F.I.R. He thus, argued that the instant petition may be dismissed.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. A perusal of the F.I.R. And the application of the petitioner revealed that the same are consistent with each other. The allegations contained in the application are very much incorporated in the F.T.R. So far as the question of omission in mentioning the correct offences in the B F.I.R. Is concerned, the learned trial Court has ample power to add or delete the offences, if it is so required on perusal of the contents of the F.I.R. The facts of the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are distinguishable from the present case. In the case of Wajid Ali Khan Durani and others v. Govt. Of Sindh (supra) first F.I.R. Was registered on the complaint of the S.H.O., second F.I.R.
Was registered at the instance of a private servant of the deceased/Mir Murtaza Bhutto, while the third F.I.R. Was registered consequent upon an order passed in the constitutional petition, filed by the widow of the deceased. The facts and the law laid down in the other case Rana Ghulam Mustafa v. Station House Officer (supra) also did not lend support to the case of the present petitioner as being distinguishable from the present case. In the cited case, it has been held by this Court that no bar exists in laying information one after the other to be recorded as F.I.R., if such information discloses commission of a separate cognizable offence and that second or later information should not be merely an amplification of the first F.I.R. But it should be a disclosure of a different criminal activity. It has further been observed in the said case that recording of second F.I.R. Depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The facts and circumstances of the present case did not disclose the commission of a separate cognizable offence and the F.I.R. Was registered as per the contents of the application submitted by the petitioner/complainant. No ground exists for ordering registration of second F.I.R. In the instant case. As far as the prayer for incorporation of relevant offences in the present F.I.R., which are made out from the contents of the F.I.R. Is concerned, suffice it to observe that investigation of the instant case is still in progress and the petitioner may approach the Investigating Officer for addition of the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused. Even after the completion of the investigation, and submission of a report under section 173, Cr.P.C., the petitioner would have another remedy before the learned trial Court for the redressal of his grievance. Needless to mention here that fate of a criminal case depends upon the contents of the F.I.R. And the prosecution evidence, and not on the provisions of offences, under which the F.I.R. Is registered by the police, as the courts are not bound by the ipse dixit of police. The instant petition is devoid of any force and the same is accordingly, dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.