1. ' IMAM BUX BALOCH, J.---SIP Noor Mohammad Noonari S.H.O. Police Station Naudero has filed his statement along with affidavit and stated that one Riaz Hussain Phulpoto registered Crime No,33 of 2011 with Police Station Naudero against accused Mst.Zahida and others and after investigation case was challaned and pending for adjudication in. The Court of law. He produced copy of the F.I.R. No,33 of 2011 of Police Station Naudero and F.I.R No,48 of 2011 of Police Station Naudero and so also photocopies of challan. The petitioner in his petition has prayed as under:--
(a) That this honourable Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondent No,1 to register the F.I.R of petitioner.
(b) That this honourable Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents Nos.2 and 3 to provide legal protection to the life and liberty and property of the petitioner and his family.
(c) Award costs of the application.
(d) Any other equitable relief be granted to the petitioner.
2. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused me record.
3. ' Mr. Shamsuddin Abbasi, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the deceased Mureed Hussain was son-in-law of petitioner and the police in connivance with one Riaz Hussain Phulpoto lodged F.I.R against Mst.Zahida and others. In fact he is one of the accused but in order to' save his skin and of Mst.Zahida he became complainant in the F.I.R No,33 of 2011 at Police Station Naudero and has spoiled the case of the petitioner. He further states that said Riaz Hussain has sworn an affidavit in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratodero to the effect that the F.I.R was not read over to him and Mst.Zahida was not available at the time of incident and he has not seen her at the time of incident. He further states that the second F.I.R of the petitioner may be registered of the sanie incident.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Mrs. Ghanwa Bhutto and another v.
5. Government of Sindh and others (PLD 1997 Karachi 119) wherein third F.I.R of Mrs. Ghanwa Bhutto was registered in the same crime. He states that second F.I.R is not barred under the law. He has also relied upon case of Mst.Anwar Begum v. Station House Officer, Police Station Kalri West Karachi and 12 others (PLD 2005 SC 297).
6. ' Mr. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri; A.A.-G. States that the petitioner has come to this Court after three months as the F.I.R was lodged on 25-3-2011. He states that after some development between the parties the petitioner came to this Court for registration of second F.I.R. He states that the case has been challaned in the Court and pending adjudication therefore, there is no need for registration of second F.I.R.
7. ' I have considered the submissions advanced at the bar.
8. ' In the case of Mst.Anwar Begum (Supra), the honourable Supreme Court held as under:-- "(7) Admittedly, petitioner from the day of incident has been agitating that the murder of her husband was managed by his real brothers, namely, Abdul Khaliq; Abdul Malik and Latif in league with respondents Siddiq, Saifur Rehman, Muhammad Raza-ul-Haq, Akbar Ali and S.I. Malik Nazir. In such circumstances, the veracity and truthfulness of F.I.R lodged by respondent Muhammad Yousuf, the Manager of the Company, became highly doubtful and the petitioner was right in asking for registration of another F.I.R. At her own version. It is on record that she had been moving applications and making representations to the high-ups in the police but because of influence of private respondents, all in vain, therefore, she rightly invoked ' the constitutional jurisdiction of the learned High Court and urged for registration of case at her own version which apparently was not disposed of in legal manner. No doubt, exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution is discretionary with the High Court but according to the principles laid down by the Superior Courts, the discretionary powers must be exercised in good faith, fairly, justly and reasonably having regard to all relevant circumstances. Examining the case of petitioner in the light of above principles, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court has not only exercised its jurisdiction improperly but also disposed of petition without adverting to the grievance of the petitioner only on technical grounds. This Court in the case of Wajid Ali Khan Durani and others v. Government of Sindh and others 2001 SCMR 1556 maintained the order of High Court whereby registration of third F.I.R was allowed on the ground that the two F.I.Rs earlier registered by police do not reflect the true facts of the case. It has also been held in this case that if information given to a police officer, which discloses a different offence was also cognizable by the police, then unless it is a mere amplification of the F.I.R 1st version, must be recorded by the police.
(10) For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that in the instant case petitioner has been able to make out a case for registration of second F.I.R. Accordingly, the petition was converted into appeal and was allowed vide short order dated 29-1-2004, which is reproduced as under:--"For the reasons to be recorded later on, the petition is converted into appeal and the same is allowed. S.H.O. Police Station Liari Town, Karachi South is directed to register fresh F.I.R.On the basis of statement of Mst.Anwar Begum, the format of which is at page 8 of Part-II of this petition within a week and report compliance to Officer Incharge of this Court at Karachi Branch Registry."
9. ' In case of Mrs. Ghanwa Bhutto and another (Supra), the Division Bench of this Court has observed as under:-- "Similar observations were made by the Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Ijaz v. The S.H.O.
10. 1979 SCMR 490. It may be pointed out that the contention on behalf of the petitioners in the said case was that under section 154, Cr.P.C, the Officer In charge of a police station was duty bound to record an F.I.R. Whenever a - report regarding commission of a cognizable offence was made to him.
11. In case of a private complaint, the Magistrate to whom a complaint is made is empowered either to enquire into the case himself or direct an enquiry or investigation by a police officer or any other person referred to in section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, depending upon the circumstances of each case. Therefore, remedy by way of a private complaint is equally an effective and a practical remedy and thus, an adequate remedy.
12. ' A question therefore, arises, when can discretion be exercised by the High Court in favour of an aggrieved party. It may not be out of place to mention that, according to the principles laid down by the superior Courts, discretionary power must be exercised in good faith having regard to all relevant considerations and it should be exercised justly, fairly and reasonably. Therefore, although an alternate remedy is provided for to an aggrieved party under the law, by way of a complaint, yet, the mere fact that an alternate remedy has been provided for, may not deter the Court from giving directions to the police to record an F.I.R. In an appropriate case.
13. ' Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the two F.I.Rs, registered by the police do not reflect the true facts of the case, does not appear to be unreasonable. It is also pertinent to point out that the petitioners wanted to name certain police officers as some of the culprits, who, according to the petitioners, had participated in the said crime and a definite role has been attributed to them in the proposed F.I.R.
14. ' In the result, subject to the observations made by us in this petition, this petition is allowed and the respondent No,2 is directed to perform his legal obligation and register the F.I.R which may be lodged on behalf of the petitioners in this case."
15. Admittedly the petitioner has agitated that murder of his son-in-law was committed by the complainant and Mst.Zahida. After examining the case of the petitioner in the light of principles as highlighted by the honourable Supreme Court and Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mrs. Ghanwa Bhutto, I am of the view that the version of the petitioner be incorporated in 154, Cr.P.C.
16. Book as the petitioner has been able to make a case for registration of second F.I.R. Accordingly, the S.H.O. Police Station Naudero' is directed to register the F.I.R of the petitioner and that DIG Police Larkana is directed to entrust the investigation of, the F.I.R to an honest police officer not below the rank of ASP.
17. ' With the above observation, this petition is disposed of.