' ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J.---Through this Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the impugned order dated 21-3-2013 passed by respondent No.1/Ex-officio Justice of Peace on the petition filed by respondent No.3 for registration of F.I.R. Upon the fake police encounter was recorded directing respondent No.2/S.H.O. To record criminal case on the application of respondent No.3 against proposed accused.
2. Brief facts as contained in the writ petition are that on police encounter F.I.R. No.90/2013 dated 18- 2-2013, under sections 324, 353, 148, 149, P.P.C. And section 13 Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) was registered at Police Station, Bhowana District Chiniot in which Imran alias Mani son of respondent No.3 was found killed and one Kalashnikov and a bag containing 150 bullets were lying besides his dead body which were taken into possession. Respondent No.3 moved an application to respondent No.2/S.H.O. For registration of F.I.R. For the murder of said Imran alias Mani, which was treated as cross version but she preferred a petition under section 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C. Before the Ex- Officio Justice of Peace to register a criminal case against the petitioner and others containing allegation that she along with Malik and her son namely, Imran alias Mani deceased was present in the house of her niece Maghlani and at about 2:00 p.m. One Sohna along with an unknown person came nearby the house who were armed with rifle made telephonic call in her presence.
Muhammad Arshad Kharal, Faisal armed with rifles came from one side whereas Riaz Shahid Gujjar and Muhammad Ali emerged from the other side and all were armed with firearm, whereupon Imran alias Mani started running into a room by raising hue and cry. Ahmad Yar son of Akbar and Anwar Bibi wife of Muhammad Yar also attracted there. Faisal Ali and Muhammad Ali threatened the others not to move and Muhammad Arshad Kharal, petitioner identified himself as S.H.O., Police Station, Langrana and they dragged Imran alias Mani out of the room whereafter Riaz Shahid fastened his arms on his back and Muhammad Arshad petitioner with the company of Imran alias Mani, whereafter the said Riaz Shahid and Muhammad Arshad Kharal commanded their company to start firing and talking someone on telephone that the police encounter was underway. They took Imran alias Mani towards the River Chanab followed by respondent No.3 by raising hue and cry. A number of local inhabitants were attracted at the spot. Meanwhile, they covered the eyes of son of respondent No.3. Riaz Shahid, Muhammad Arshad Kharal, Muhammad Ali and Sohna started indiscriminate firing hitting Imran alias Mani on his different parts of the body, who fell down. Faisal and Imran also fired upon him in fallen condition. After some time police vehicle reached there, took away the dead body with them. The motive behind the occurrence, as stated by respondent No.3 in the application, was that Sohna got Imran arrested without any justification who was found innocent but the latter started threatened him to take revenge. It was alleged that Sohna with the other police officials has committed the murder of her son but gave the colour of occurrence as police encounter.
3. S.H.O. Submitted report before the Ex-officio Justice of Peace stating that Imran was required in case F.I.R. No. 90/2013 dated 18-2-2013, under sections 324, 353, 148, 149, P.P.C. And section 13 Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 was registered at Police Station, Bhowana District Chiniot but the impugned order was passed while holding that recording of cross version will not serve the purpose, therefore, a separate F.I.R. Was ordered to be registered, hence this writ petition.
4. The main arguments of Mr. Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon, Advocate is that F.I.R. No.90/2013 dated 18- 2-2013, under sections 324, 353,148,149, P.P.C. And section 13 Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) at Police Station, Bhowana District Chiniot was already registered in which cross version of respondent No.3 has already been recorded and if she is dissatisfied she may file a private complaint as in the judicial inquiry conducted by Mr. Nadeem Khizar, Enquiry Officer/ Judicial Magistrate section 30, Bhowana District Chiniot the occurrence was not found as fake police encounter. He also adds that the dictum laid down by the apex court Mushtaq Hussain and another v. The State (2011 SCMR 45) is not applicable as 2nd F.I.R. Sought to be registered pertains to the same time and place of occurrence, therefore, the impugned order be set aside.
5. Conversely, Messrs Ch. Umer Hayat Kamran Rajoka and Ghulam Shabbir Shahid, Advocates for respondent No.3 submit that the police has labelled the murder of Imran alias Mani as police encounter which is just mockery of fact as the deceased received 14 shots in a fake police encounter conducted by 21 police men and the deceased was allegedly found in possession of Kalashnikov along with a bag containing 150 bullets. None of the police officials received even a single injury. It was further added that during the judicial inquiry the emphasis was laid down on single point that Imran alias Mani was killed by the police and that the story as narrated by the police, is nothing but a bundle of lie. It was concluded that Imran alias Mani was killed due to indiscriminate firing which needs probe and verification and therefore, prays for dismissal of this writ petition.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. The registration of second F.I.R., particularly, in the case of police encounter has been of particular importance for which superior courts have been handing down their judgments. It is, therefore, appropriate to scan the wisdom in the law laid down in the judgments relevant to the facts and circumstance of the case.
8. In Muhammad Aslam v. S.H.O. And others (PLJ 1997 Lahore 1453), a learned Single Judge of this Court has already held that filing of a private complaint in terms of section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the murder of son of the petitioner therein is not enough to deprive him of his legal right to get registered the F.I.R. In police encounter especially when the version contained eye-witness account. It was further observed that the very practice will certainly prompt the granting of free hand to the police against whom the citizens have their own grievances, out of which some are justified and valid. In Mst.Ghazala Aziz v. S.H.O. And others (1999 YLR 1388), it was held that the wanted proclaimed offender was not even touched or apprehended and none of the police officers/officials received scra tch on his body during the occurrence. It was also held that earlier F.I.R. By the police was essentially in the nature of a defence plea which may be examined in juxtaposition, therefore, F.I.R. Was ordered to be registered. In Mumtaz Hussain v. Deputy Inspector General, Faisalabad and 7 others (PLD 2002 Lahore 78), it was held that the F.I.R. Was directed to be registered as mere fact that in the judicial inquiry conducted by the Magistrate the cause of death of septicemia was not a bar for registration of F.I.R. For the murder of the deceased, who died during the police custody. In Noor Ahmad v. D.I.G., Police, D.G. Khan and 7 others (2005 YLR 1545), earlier F.I.R. Recorded by the police declaring the incident as police encounter cannot be treated as gospel truth which is not sufficient to refuse registration of F.I.R. It was further held that the purpose of judicial inquiry is to find out the facts and mere pendency of same is not barred for registration of a criminal case, where the cognizable offence is made out. In Muhammad Asif v. Umar Farooq Khan, Inspector Police and S others (2010 MLD 128), it was held that as the place of occurrence, the stance of the parties was different the second F.I.R. Was ordered to be registered as a distinct and separate cognizable offence was made out. In Wajid Ali Khan Durani and others v. Government of Sindh and others (2001 SCMR 1556), it was held that if information disclosed to the police constitute cognizable offence, then unless it was mere amplification of the first version the same F.I.R. Must be registered, hence the 3rd F.I.R. Was ordered to be registered. In Mushtaq Hussain and another v. The State (2011 SCMR 45), it was held that whenever counter versions are received by the police, separate F.I.R's. Are to be chalked out. It was observed that by not registering an independent case, the petitioner seems to be oblivion of the fact that the statement if so taken in a criminal case after the registration of a case would be under section 161, Cr.P.C., therefore, proper course was to register a separate F.I.R. Containing all the necessary ingredients of the F.I.R., i.e., the time of report, the time of occurrence, distance from the Police Station and the statement be read over to the maker and then getting his thumb impressions or signature in token of its correctness. In an unreported judgment dated 19-3-2014 passed by this Court in Muhammad Ali v. D.P.O. (Writ Petition No.2795/2014) the Ex-officio Justice of Peace was directed to pass an appropriate order in the petition under section 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C. As the writ petition was directly filed before this. Court. In Babra Sultana v. R.P.O., and others (Writ Petition No.2795/2014) decided on 19-3-2014, this Court ordered for filing of complaint as the petitioner therein has participated in the inquiries which also concluded while observing that the inquiry was not fake. Scanning the above case law and applying the principles to the instant case where in the judicial inquiry conducted it was observed that the deceased was killed by the shots of the petitioner and that none was injured from the petitioner's side and the record of the deceased did not show that he was listed in the top class absconder therefore, a cross version in a police encounter is not enough for the reason that F.I.R.
Earlier registered will be seen in its juxtaposition, therefore, the second F.I.R. Was rightly ordered to be registered particularly when different eye-witnesses have accounted for the occurrence, I could not see any constitutional defect in the impugned order which is well reasoned and legal one.
' In this view of the matter, this petition having no merits in hereby dismissed.