' NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.---Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner Mst. Murad Khatoon has prayed for the following relief(s):-- ' To direct the respondent No, 1 to record the statement of the petitioner and act in accordance with law in terms of section 154, Cr.P.C. And register the F.I.R. Of the petitioner because the cognizable offences punishable under sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C. Are made out.
Any other equitable relief.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that, petitioner along with her grandson namely Fahad son of Liaquat Ali aged about 20/21 years left home at 12.00 noon for getting medicine from the hospital at Warah, when they reached near village Mangio Khan they were confronted with proposed accused Abdul Ghaffar, Tariq, Khalid, Mujeed, Murtaza, Ali Jan, Deedar and Zahid. It is alleged that proposed accused Abdul Ghaffar fired upon Fahad, which hit him and he fell down. Petitioner raised cries, which attracted P. Ws. Hussain Ali, Muhammad Ali, Ameer Bakhsh and Ghulam Ali, who also witnessed the incident, thereafter, culprits ran away. Petitioner along with prosecution witnesses informed the incident to SIP Badal Panhwar, the S.H.O. Police Station Warah on telephone, who along with his staff came to place of incident; shifted dead body of Fahad and took the petitioner and witnesses in the police mobile to the, hospital, thereafter, the S.H.O. Brought petitioner at police station and obtained her thumb impression and told her that her F.I.R. Has been registered and she was returned back. It is further stated that S.H.O. Police Station Warah along with his staff went to the house of the petitioner and arrested one Sajjad alias Marshalla son of Roshan Ali Choliyani. A.S.-I. Ghulam Rasool of Police Station Warah lodged F.I.R.' of above incident, bearing Crime No,109 of 2012, under section 302, P.P.C. On behalf of the State against accused Sajjad alias Marshalla instead of real culprits of the incident. Petitioner came to know about registration of the F.I.R. By A.S.-I. On behalf of the. State, then she approached S.H.O. For registration of her F.I.R. As per her version, but S.H.O. Was reluctant to register F.I.R. And finally refused.
3. Petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution.
4. Notice was issued to the respondents, as well as A.A.-G. Comments have been filed by the S.S.P, Kamber-Shandadkot and S.H.O. Police Station Warah.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner approached to the S.H.O., Police Station Warah, for registration of the F.I.R. In respect of murder of her. Grandson Fahad against the real culprits of the incident, but S.H.O. 'refused to perform his statutory duty. He has further argued that one A.S.-I. Ghulam Rasool lodged F.I.R. Bearing Crime No,109 of 2012, against accused Sajjad alias Marshalla on behalf of the State, under section 302, P.P.C., regarding murder of Fahad, only to save the real culprits. Lastly it is submitted that it was the duty of the S.H.O. To register F.I.R. In the cognizable offence. In support of the contentions he relied upon the case of Mst. Anwar Begum v.
Station House Officer Police Station Kafiri West Karachi (PLD 2005 Supreme Court 297), Muhammad Bashir v. S.H.O. Police Station Okara Cantt (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 539), Jamshed Khan and another v. Government of Sindh (1999 PCr.LJ 512), and Human Rights case No,3212 (2006 SCM R 1547).
6. Learned State Counsel submitted that petitioner never approached S.H.O. Police Station Warah for registration of the F.I.R. He referred to the statement filed by the S.S.P, Kamber-Shandadkot, the respondent No,2, in which he has stated that petitioner did not approach the concerned S.H.O.
Learned State Counsel further argued that when the legal heirs of the deceased did not appear at the Police Station, A.S.-I. Ghulam Rasool lodged the F.I.R. On behalf of the State, under section 302, P.P.C.
7. Section 154, Cr.P.C. Lays down that when information with regard to a cognizable offence is laid before the Incharge of a Police Station he has to incorporate the same in a book prescribed by the Provincial Government. It will be pertinent to reproduce herein below section 154, Cr.P.C. For the sake of convenience:- "154. Information in cognizable cases. Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer-in-charge of a Police Station, shall be - reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the Provincial Government may prescribe in this behalf."
8. The plain reading of above provision clearly shows that in charge of a Police Station is duty bound and it is his statutory obligation that on receipt of information whether orally or in writing he has to record the same in the book prescribed for that purpose and no option or discretion is left with him in this regard.
9. A question therefore arises, when a' discretion can be exercised by the High Court in favour of an aggrieved party. It may not be out of place to mention here 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 B justly, fairly and reasonably. Therefore, although an alternate remedy is provided to an aggrieved party under the law, by way of Direct 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 a F.I.R. In an appropriate case.
10. Petitioner's grandson has been murdered and the incident was witnessed by the petitioner and her witnesses. Accused Abdul Ghaffar, Tariq, Khalid and others have been specifically named in the petition. Motive for commission of offence has also been mentioned in the petition; as such petitioner is an aggrieved person. Therefore, in the above stated peculiar circumstances, a case for registration of another F.I.R. Is made out. Petitioner had approached to the S.H.O. For registration of F.I.R. But S.H.O. Has failed to perform his statutory duty. Entirely different version has been narrated by A.S.-I. In his F.I.R. Lodged on behalf of State. Petitioner cannot be deprived from recording her statement by S.H.O. On this ground alone.
11. In view of the case-law referred by learned Advocate for the petitioner and for the aforesaid reasons, petition is allowed. The S.H.O Police Station Warah is directed to perform his legal obligations and register fresh F.I.R. On the basis of statement of Mst. Murad Khatoon in accordance with law. The S.S.P, Kamber-Shandadkot shall depute honest police officer of the District, for investigation of the case strictly in accordance with law.
12. Petition is accordingly disposed of.