' RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.---The facts in brief as emerge on perusal of the record are that the petitioner submitted an application before respondent No,2 contending therein that her daughter Mst. Saman Khalid was abducted by one Allah Ditta per force, who subsequently obtained her signatures on "Nikah Nama". A case regarding abduction of Mst. Saman Khalid was registered against him but subsequently she did not pursue the case due to compromise. Allah Ditta did not allow him to see her daughter, who told her on telephone that she has been defrauded and Allah Ditta was already married and father of three children and that she was forced to involve in prostitution by Allah Ditta, his sister Mst. Irram and brother Chand Ashraf whereas, two unknown employees used to remain at guard. Her' daughter joined her on her own. Allah Ditta filed a habeas petition in the Sessions Court, which was dismissed on 2-10-2010. On 5-4-2010, her daughter got a decree for dissolution of marriage against Allah Ditta, but he again abducted her. The petitioner went to see her daughter but it was told that Allah Ditta had shifted his residence and new address was not told to her. She tried to make contact with her daughter but could not. About two days prior to murder of her daughter, she told the petitioner on telephone that Allah Ditta, his sister and Chand Ashraf had warned her that if she did not agree to involve in prostitution and disclose this fact or try to run away, she would .Be murdered. During conversation on telephone Mst. Irram etc. Snatched the telephone from her and disconnected the same. On the night between 18/19-10-2011, Allah Ditta, Mst. Irram and Chand Ashraf with two unknown persons caused "Qatl-e-Amd" of Mst.
Saman Khalid by making firing on her head. On 19-10-2011 at about 1-00 p.m. a call was received on telephone of Faisal from Saeed, S.-I., who told that her daughter had been murdered. She came to the Police Station and submitted the application.
2. She contended that case was not registered in spite of the fact that the information was furnished in writing so she was constrained to move an application under section 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C, which was accepted vide order dated 29-10-2011 by the learned ASJ/JOP but the respondent No,2 did not take any action. She again moved an application, which was accepted by the learned ASJ/JOP, who directed the CCPO, to look into the matter and resolve the problem of the petitioner. It is contended that in spite of clear direction no case regarding gruesome murder of her daughter on her refusal to involve in prostitution has been registered.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the above contention and contended that the case registered on the complaint of Muhammad Saeed, SI does not depict the true facts and as such the petitioner had been trying to bring on record the real facts leading to unfortunate "Qatl-e-Amd" of her daughter at the hands of Allah Ditta etc. But the police officials on one pretext or the other are refraining to perform their duties. It is urged that version or cross version in this case would not serve the ends of justice and the proper course for the respondents is to register a case on the complaint of the petitioner, which was submitted on 19-10-2011. In support of the contentions raised reliance is placed on 2011 SCM R 45.
4. The learned A.A.-G. Has contended that Muhammad Saeed, S.-I. Found the dead body and his complaint was reduced into formal F.I.R. It is urged that petitioner made the statement under section 161, Cr.P.0 and the investigation is being conducted in the light of the same. The object of recording the information regarding commission of cognizable offence is to set the machinery under the law in motion to find out the truth. The facts narrated in the petition reveal the commission of "Qatl-e-Amd" of an innocent girl on her refusal to yield to the demand to involve in prostitution made by the persons mentioned therein. The motive and other facts mentioned in the application do not form part of the F.I.R. There is no bar under section 154 or any other provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 on recording the second F.I.R., if distinct facts are put forth by the petitioner/complainant. The petitioner is real mother of the unfortunate girl, who has been allegedly done to death due to her refusal to involve in prostitution. Allegedly, she was abducted after she had obtained a decree for dissolution of marriage and failure of Allah Ditta, her ex- husband to obtain her custody from the Court of learned Sessions Judge through an application under section 491, Cr.P.C. It is the duty of the S.H.O. To reduce such information into writing and proceed further in accordance with law. He and CCPO, Lahore not only flouted the orders of the learned ASJ/JOP but also failed to perform their duties in accordance with law in spite of direction of the competent forum. Thy: Ex-Officio Justice of Peace can lawfully require the S.H.O. To register the case as provided under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.0 and in case of contumacious disobedience of the order, this Court through exercise of its powers under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 can direct the concerned Police Officer to perform his duties as required under the law. The application is accordingly accepted and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to ensure that statement of the petitioner is recorded under section 154 Cr.P.C. And thereafter the investigation of the case is conducted under Chapter XIV Cr.P.0 purely on merits and strictly in accordance with law.