' QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.---Through the present petition, the petitioners have sought the quashment of the order dated 19-4-2011 of the learned Justice of Peace/Sessions Judge Tank and the consequent F.I.R. No,97 dated 28-4-2011 of Police Station Mullazai Tank.
2. The brief facts leading to the instant petition are that Mst. Malkanrah Bibi submitted an application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Praying for the registration of a criminal case against the petitioners. She alleged that on 6-4-2011 at 7-00 p.m. The petitioners raided her house and her brothers situated at Mamdu Gullu, District Tank and in the process killed her brother Mumtaz Khan who was allegedly involved in case F.I.R. No, 41 dated 21-11-2010 under sections 5/10/11 of the Hudood Ordinance 1979 registered at Police Station Koper, District Malakand. She made every effort to register a case about the murder of her brother but the S.H.O. Of Police Station Mulazai, petitioner No,1 refused to do so, therefore, she approached the learned Justice of Peace Tank for registration of a criminal case which was accordingly ordered vide order impugned herein.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued the petition at a considerable length. He submitted that there was no justification for the registration of F.I.R. Against the petitioners on the application of the applicant who was not an eye-witness to the occurrence and thus the narration in F.I.R. Is her own brain child. He contended that F.I.R. No,84 in respect of the same incident had already been registered on 6-4-2011 under sections 324/353/34, P.P.C. And 13 Arms Ordinance at Police Station Mullazai, hence there was no need for registration of still another F.I.R. In the case and that the provisions of section 22-A, P.P.C. Are not attracted in the case in hand. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the case-law reported as 2011 M LD 223 (Lahore), 2011 YLR 2466 (Karachi) and 2009 YLR 330 (Lahore).
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondent No,2/ complainant vehemently opposed the quashment petition and stated that in every cognizable offence, F.I.R. Is necessarily to be registered. Still even before the learned Justice of Peace, the petitioners were not condemned unheard but were provided equal opportunity of hearing when the learned Justice of Peace passed the impugned order which is perfectly correct and needs no interference.
5. I have carefully gone through the record of the case and anxiously considered the valuable arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. It is the mandate of section 154, Cr.P.C. That once a cognizable offence takes place and is reported to the police, then the Officer Incharge of the Police Station concerned shall record the same in writing.
7. In the instant case, the respondent/complainant was aggrieved of the manner in which the occurrence took place resulting into the death of her brother Mumtaz Khan and the operation was led by Yousuf Khan S.H.O. Of Police Station Mullazai who hurriedly lodged F.I.R. No,84 dated 6-4-2011 with his own narration of facts. However, the allegations of the respondent/complainant are that on being refused to lodge an F.I.R. Containing her own version, she had little choice but to approach the learned Justice of Peace, moreso when she has nominated the S.H.O. Concerned as the main accused in her case.
8. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the presence of one F.I.R., there was no need for registration of still another F.I.R. As the complainant could get her remedy from the trial Court during the trial proceedings in that case is without force. There is no legal embargo on the registration of a second F.I.R. When a second version containing a separate and distinct cognizable offence is disclosed and 'the need is felt that no factual investigation or trial can be held without properly evaluating and considering the true version. It is for the trial court to separate the grain from the chaff in view of separate versions in the two F.I.Rs, In this regard, I am fortified in my views in view of the case-law reported in 2001 SCM R 1556 titled Wajid All Khan Durrani v. Govt. Of Sindh and 2010 M LD 128. It will be after holding trial in the case that both the guilt and the guilty would come to the fore.
9. I have perused the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners but found that the facts and circumstances of the case in hand are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case-law relied upon by the petitioners and, therefore, it has no relevancy therewith.
10. The purpose of the registration of an F.I.R. By no count means to hold a person guilty of an offence but to set into motion the process of investigation and if at any stage during trial it is found by the trial Court that a case is not, made out against the accused, then his acquittal may be ordered under section 265-K, Cr.P.C.
11. The interference by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
Would tantamount to pre-empting the functions of the trial Court itself and secondly, it would amount to curtailing the right of the complainant to prove her case against the petitioners. While exercising powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C, the High Court must maintain great care and caution so that it may not result into miscarriage of justice.
12. The allegations of the complainant in her application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Before the Justice of Peace per se constitute a cognizable offence and the application was, therefore, rightly accepted through the impugned order for the registration of F.I.R. Such order and the consequent F.I.R. Are unexceptionable and warrant no interference, by this court in exercise of its inherent powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
13. Before parting with this judgment, I have observed that the learned Justice of Peace while disposing of the application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Has discussed and touched the merits of the case in detail which was not required at this stage as the same would definitely prejudice the proceedings before the trial court. The observations of the learned Justice of Peace/Sessions Judge Tank are accordingly expunged and the learned trial Judge shall decide the case on its own merits without being prejudiced therefrom. It is also directed that in the interest of justice, the trial of the case should be conducted by another Additional Sessions Judge, in District Tank.
14. For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.