' MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J.---Through this petition, petitioner Azad Khan seeks direction by this Court for respondent No.1 Station House Officer (SHO), Satellite Town Police Station, Quetta to register second F.I.R. At his behest against the proposed accused persons.
2. In the occurrence, subject matter of this petition, the father of petitioner; viz, Allah Nazar lost his life, whereas the petitioner and his cousin, namely, Muhammad Dawood sustained grievous injuries. The grievance of the petitioner is that the existing F.I.R. No.50 of 2013 dated 10th February, 2013, lodged by the SHO himself does not reflect the true account of the occurrence. It is also the case of the petitioner that though the matter was promptly reported to the SHO, yet he failed to lodge the F.I.R. Against the culprits and by distorting the real facts, himself lodged the F.I.R., while twisting the facts in order to save the culprits from clutches of law.
3. In such state of affairs, the petitioner has been approaching the SHO and high-ups of the police department for registration of second F.I.R. As per his own version, but all in vain. He was, however, constrained to invoke the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge/Justice of the Peace by filing an application under section 22-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Cr.P.C.) for registration of F.I.R., which was disposed of vide order dated 29th May, 2013 in the following manner:-- "Counsel for the applicant is not in attendance. District Attorney is present. Report of SHO has been received, which shows that section 302 of the P.P.C. Has been incorporated therein and F.I.R. Has already been registered. Thus, in such circumstances, the application is disposed of and SHO is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Application is consigned to record."
4. I have heard Mr. Attaullah Kakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Yahya Khan, learned Additional Prosecutor-General at length and also perused the available record of the case minutely.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the legal and factual aspects of the controversy have not been appreciated in its true perspective by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV-/Justice of the Peace, Quetta, which resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. The impugned order, on the face of it, suffers from legal infirmity, as the grievance of the petitioner has not been dilated upon in its true sense. Rather the application was disposed of through a non- speaking order without any concrete directions to the concerned SHO for doing the needful. He further submitted that the findings of the learned Justice of the Peace regarding lodging of second F.I.R. Are erroneous and confusing, for the reason that there is no bar on registration of second F.I.R., as the first F.I.R. Lodged by the SHO himself, that too after joining hands with the culprits in order to save them from the clutches of law, does not reflect the true facts.
6. Mr. Yahya Khan, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General (DPG), firmly resisted the petition. He argued that the petition is not maintainable, as F.I.R. Of the same incident has already been registered by IP/SHO of Satellite Town Police Station, Quetta and during course of investigation, the statements of petitioner as well as injured witness were also recorded, as such, neither was there any justification for lodging of second F.I.R., nor is there any provision in the law for registration of the second F.I.R.
He, while concluding his arguments, submitted that the only alternate remedy available to the petitioner was to file a private complaint before the competent Court of law instead of praying for registration of the second F.I.R.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner from the day of incident has been agitating that his father was murdered and injuries were caused to him as well as his cousin by the nominated accused persons during a daylight occurrence. It is also evident from bare reading of the contents of F.I.R.
No.50 of 2013 lodged by the SHO that the firsthand information regarding the commission of cognizable offence was conveyed to him by the cousin of the petitioner, namely, Muhammad Dawood, thus, he was required to enter the same in a book to be kept by SHO in such form as the provincial government may prescribe in this behalf. Prima facie, it seems that the SHO, instead of lodging F.I.R. As per version of the injured Muhammad Dawood, while distorting the real facts, lodged the F.I.R. Himself, thus, in such state of affairs, the veracity and truthfulness of the F.I.R.
Lodged by the SHO himself become highly doubtful and the petitioner was having a right in asking for registration of another F.I.R. At his own version. I am mindful of the fact that during the course of occurrence, some of the proposed accused persons have also sustained injuries as is evident from the contents of F:I.R. No.50 of 2013, however, in such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the SHO to lodge a separate F.I.R. Regarding counter version instead of arraying the victims and culprits in one and the same F.I.R. It is also worth mentioning that the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the learned Justice of the Peace by filing an application under section 22-A of the Cr.P.C. And urged for registration of the case at his own version, which, apparently, was not disposed of in a legal manner. The learned Justice of the Peace disposed of the said application id a highly casual and clandestine manner without adhering to the relevant provisions of law and dilating upon to the grievance of the petitioner.
8. The contention of the learned DPG that since F.I.R. No.50 of 2013, under sections 337-ADF, 302 read with sections 147 and 149 of the P.P.C. Has already been registered on 10th February, 2013, as such, second F.I.R., regarding the same incident cannot be registered, is alsoIA without any substance. It is by now settled that there is no embargo with I regard to registration of second F.I.R. In respect of different versions given by the aggrieved party of the same occurrence and the only impediment is that second F.I.R. Should not contain the facts for the Mere amplification of the first version. The question of registration of second F.I.R. Came for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Wajid All Khan Durrani v. Government of Sindh 2001 SCM R 1556, and the order of the High Court, whereby registration of third F.I.R. Was allowed on the ground that the two F.I.Rs. Earlier registered by police did not reflect the true facts of the case, was upheld. Similarly, it was also held that if information given to a police officer, discloses a different version, which was also cognizable by the police, then unless it is a mere amplification of the first version, the same must be recorded by the police.
9. Similarly, the contention of the learned DPG that the only alternate remedy available to the petitioner was to file a private complaint is also without any substance. It is true that the criminal law can also be set into motion by filing of a private complaint before a Magistrate as provided by section 190 of the Cr.P.C., however, it is equally true that there may be some cases, where the evidence to prove the commission of an offence cannot be collected, except through the police agency. Even otherwise, mere availability of alternate remedy neither absolves the SHO from discharging his official duties as envisaged under section 154 of the Cr.P.C., nor deters the Court from giving directions, to the Police to record second F.I.R. In an appropriate case. In this regard, reference can be m de to the case of Mrs. Ghanwa Bhutto v. Government of Sindh, PLD 1997 Karachi 119, wherein it was observed:-- "13. 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 here that, according to the principle 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 a F.I.R. In an appropriate case."
10. Reverting to the last contention of the learned DPG that in case direction for registration of second F.I.R. Is given, then the matter will never be ended and there will be a chain and repetition of F.I.Rs., however, I am not impressed by the said contention, because it too has no legs to stand on, as section 182 of the Cr.P.C furnishes a complete answer to the said contention. If any person gives the first information report to police officer, which, subsequently, found to be false, the informant can be liable to punishment under the said provision of law.
' In view of the above, the order dated 29th May, 2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Quetta is set aside and respondent No.1 i.e. SHO, Satellite Town Police Station, Quetta is directed to register the F.I.R. Of the petitioner as per his version against the proposed accused persons, strictly in accordance with law.