' By. This single order, I am disposed to dispose of Writ Petition No, 157/15 and Writ Petition No, 171/15 for a simple reason that both these writ petitions arise from one and the same order i.e, 23.12.2014 passed by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Pace/Additional Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan.
2. Maqsood Ahmad, the petitioner filed this petition to assail the validity of the order dated 23.12.2014 passed by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge, D.G. Khan, whereby he allowed an application moved by Mst. Nasim Mai, Respondent No, 2 for the registration of second FIR in respect of the murder of her husband, Mansoor Ahmad.
3. Putting in a nutshell, Muhammad Saeed lodged FIR No, 356/14 dated 08.08.2014 registered under Sections 324 and 34 PPC at Police Station Kot Chutta, District D.G. Khan, implicating Allah Yar and another accused who allegedly fired at Mansoor Ahmad, his son with the aim of taking his life. He succumbed to the injuries at Nishtar Hospital, Multan on 09.08.2014, whereafter Section 302 PPC was added. Challan was submitted against Allah Yar and Waseem, who is none other than the real brother of Mat. Nasim Mai, Respondent No,
2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, D.G. Khan took cognizance of the case and framed charge against the aforesaid accused on 15.10.2014. The prosecution examined P.W.1 on 13.11.2014. Statedly, the evidence of as many as six witnesses has been recorded. While the trial was proceeding apace, Mst. Nasim Mai filed an application with the learned Sessions Judge, D.G. Khan under Section 22-A Cr.P.C. Seeking the registration of second FIR against Rahm, Nawaz, Manzoor, Jumma and Maqsood Ahmed, the present petitioner regarding the murder of Mansoor Ahmed, her husband. Report was called for from the S.H.O. Police Station Kot Chutta, who opined that the application moved by Mst. Nasim Mai was baseless, groundless and unfounded, which was aimed at saving the skin of Wasim, her real brother. Even so, the learned Exofficio Justice of Peace ordered the registration of the second FIR vide order dated 23.12.2014.
' It is pertinent to mention that while Maqsood Ahmed, the petitioner in Writ Petition No, 157/15 seeks to quash the aforesaid order, Mst. Nasim Mai, the petitioner in Writ Petition No, 171 of 2015 is seeking its implementation.
4. In support of the petition of Maqsood Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of Section 22-A Cr.P.C. Cannot be pressed into service for the registration of a second FIR in respect of the same occurrence; that Mst. Nasim Mai is not an eyewitness to the occurrence; that Mst. Nasim Mai kept mum for over four months; that she was prevailed upon by her brother to fabricate the facts and to divert the course of justice. It was lastly argued that when the local police had already submitted a detailed report, controverting the allegations made by Mst. Nasim Mai and also submitted a report under Section 173 Cr.P.0 against the real accused, the registration of the second FIR would be an abuse of process of law.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for Mst. Nasim Mai has vehemently argued that there is no bar in law to the registering of the second FIR. To fortify his submissions, he has heavily placed reliance upon the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "Wajid Ali Khan Durani and others v. Government of Sindh and others" (2001 SCM R 1556) and "Mst. Anwar Begum v. Station House Officer, Police Station Kalri West, Karachi and 12 others" (PLD 2005 Supreme Court 297).
6. From a perusal of the record and the arguments made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is absolutely clear that case FIR No, 356/14 dated 08.08.2014 was got registered by Muhammad Saeed, the real father of Mansoor Ahmed deceased. When questioned as to whether Muhammad Saeed bore any ill will or animosity against his son, the learned counsel for Mst. Nasim Mai answered in the negative. To another question put to him as to why father of the deceased would let the real accused off the hook, while implicating the innocent falsely, he did not give any satisfactory answer. It was simply insisted by him that registration of second FIR would serve the ends of justice and that no illegality was committed by the learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace in passing the impugned order.
7. It is undeniable that Mst. Nasim Mai is not eyewitness to the occurrence. Again, it is not in dispute that her real brother, Wasim is facing trial for the murder of her husband, Mansoor Ahmed. Her silence for over four months speaks volumes for her initial reaction as to the accused involved in the murder of Mansoor Ahmed. Her belated attempt to get the second FIR registered against the petitioner and others appears to be a motivated one, and this is evident from a bare perusal of the complaint made by her to the learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace, D.G. Khan. A good part thereof speaks of the innocence of Wasim and this is sufficient enough to throw light on the mindset of Mst.
Nasim Mai and the object which she has had in view to achieve.
8. With utmost respect to the counsel for Mst. Nasim Mai, Respondent No, 2, his reliance on the case law reported as 2001 SCM R 1556 (supra) and PLD 2005 SC 297 (supra) is inapt and misplaced, to say the least. To begin with, every criminal case proceeds on its own facts, as has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "The State v. Mushtaq Ahmed" (PLD 1973 SC 418), "Rai Ashraf v. Saleem Bhatti" (PLD 2010 SC 691) and "Muhammad Faiz Khan v. Ahmed Khan"
(2010 SCM R 105). In the case of Wajid Ali Khan Durani (supra), Mst. Ghanwa Bhutto had approached the High Court of Sindh, Karachi for the registration of second FIR regarding the murder of her husband, Mir Murtaza Bhutto, whereas Mst. Badrunnisa was also pressing for the registration of second FIR for the murder of Ashiq Jatoi, her husband. The first FIR in respect of murder of Mir Murtaza Bhutto was registered at the instance of a police officer who himself was a prime suspect, while the second FIR regarding murder of Ashiq Jatoi was lodged by a servant of Mir Murtaza Bhutto deceased at a time when he was in police custody. From day one, both women were crying hoarse that the aforesaid FIRs did not reflect true facts and a story was made up therein to save the skin of actual culprits. Likewise, in the case of Mst. Anwar Begum (supra), the widow of the deceased was maintaining from the word go that brothers of the deceased were involved in the murder of her husband, but they got an FIR against unknown accused through the Manager of the deceased. The facts, of the instant case are entirely different. Here, the real father of the deceased was the complainant of case FIR No, 356/14 dated 08.08.2014. The deceased might be close to the heart of Mst. Nasim Mai but it cannot be claimed by her that there was any love lost between the deceased and Muhammad Saeed, his father and if it is maintained that he was not put through the ordeal, anguish, agony and torture in the wake of the death of his son, it would not only be unnatural but would also run counter to the common course of events. The very silence and inaction of Mst. Nasim Mai reflects adversely on her bona Tidies. It bears repeating that she herself let the cat out by stating repeatedly in her complaint made to the learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace that her brother, Wasim was being innocent and was being involved maliciously. It cannot also be lost sight of that as many as six prosecution witnesses have been examined and the trial of the accused, including the brother of Mst. Nasim Mai is likely to conclude in the near future. If the wish of Mst. Nasim Mai is granted, it would definitely deflect the course of justice, if not obstruct it and make a lasting impact on the ongoing trial of Allah Y EU' in the case FIR No, 356/14 dated 08.08.2014. The very fact that the local police have already negated the version of Mst. Nasim Mai regarding the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offence of murder of Mansoor Ahmed is an added reason not to register the second FIR. If so advised, Mst. Nasim Mai might file a private complaint to vindicate her stance without throwing a spanner in the works. In the case of "Ch Muhammad Aslam v. CPO Rawalpindi and others" (2011 PCr.LJ 1870) a Full Bench of this Court held the private complaint to be an alternative and efficacious remedy, declining the registration of second FIR.
9. For what has been stated above, the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge, D.G. Khan did not exercise his discretionary jurisdiction in accordance with the law by allowing the application of Mst. Nasim Mai, Respondent No, 2 for the registration of the second FIR regarding the murder of Mansoor Ahmed. Consequently, Writ Petition No, 157 of 2015 is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.12.2014 is declared to have been passed in excess of jurisdiction, which is hereby set aside, leaving Mst. Nasim Mai to avail Of the alternative remedy of private complaint. As a result, Writ Petition No, 171 of 2015 instituted by Mst. Nasim Mai seeking a direction to S.H.O. Police Station. Kot Chutta, District D.G. Khan to carry out the order dated 23.12.2014 passed by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge, D.G. Khan is hereby dismissed.