Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged the vires of the order dated 10.06.2015 passed by the learned Justice of Peace in petition under Section 22-A & 22-B Cr.P.C. Filed by respondent No.3, wherein SHO concerned was directed to record the version of respondent No.3 and proceed further strictly against the culprits while invoking Section 154 Cr.P.C.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ahtasham Masood aged about 24/25 years was murdered during the police encounter due to firing of his other colleagues, the occurrence took place on 21.05.2015 at about 11.40 pm and in this regard FIR No.670-2015 has been registered under Sections 302, 324, 353, 186 PPC along with Section 13/20 of Arms Ordinance, 1965, but in spite of fact, respondent No.3 made an application against the police officials for registration of case and learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace vide impugned order dated 10.06.2015 directed to SHO concerned to proceed in the mater strictly against the culprits by invoking Section 154 Cr.P.C, which is liable to be set-aside and second FIR on the same subject matter cannot be registered.
3. Contrary to it, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submit that from the contents of the petition moved by respondent No.3 cognizable offence is made out as police officials committed the murder of Ahtasham, son of respondent No.3 who is an advocate by making firing upon him and learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace has rightly passed the impugned order in accordance with law.
It is further argued that police official got lodged FIR No.670-2015 regarding the murder of son of respondent No.3 as per his own accord, but actual facts are not narrated therein, so many lacunas of the case are missing, therefore, there is no bar to get lodged second FIR on the same subject matter, but parties of the same are different. In this regard reliance can be placed "Mushtaq Hussain, etc. Vs. The State" (2011 SCMR 45), "Mst. Anwar Begum. Vs. Station House Officer, etc." (PLD 2005 S.C. 297),"Muhammad Asif. Vs. Umar Farooq", Inspector Police and 5 others" (2010 M.L.D. 128), Mrs. Ghganwa Bhutto and another. Vs. Govt. Of Sindh and another" (PLD 1997 Karachi 119).
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. It is observed by this Court that Ahtasham Masood, son of respondent No.3 had been murdered by the police party and to save their skin a case FIR No.670-2015 was registered against the unknown assailants by leaving some lacunas in it. Therefore, respondent No.3 moved an application before learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A & 22-B Cr.P.C. For registration of FIR with his own view and contention. In this regard reliance can be placed reported as "Mst. Anwar Begum. Vs. Station House Officer, etc." (PLD 2005 S.C. 297), wherein it has been held that discretionary powers under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan must be exercised by the High Court in good faith, fairly, justly and reasonably having regard to all relevant circumstances and in accordance with principles laid down by the Superior Courts. Disposal of constitutional petition on technical grounds without adverting to grievance of respondent No.3 was not legal.
Respondent No.3 father of the deceased has made out a case for registration of second FIR. The August Supreme Court of Pakistan accepted the appeal with the direction to police to register fresh FIR on the basis of version of aggrieved person within a week. Second FIR is permissible if truthfulness of first FIR had become highly doubtful as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as "Mst. Anwar Begum. Vs. Station House Officer, etc." (PLD 2005 S.C. 297). It has also been held that mere fact that an alternate remedy had been provided for, could not debar the Court from giving direction to the police to record another FIR. Reliance can be placed on "Wajid Ali Khan Durani and others. Vs. Government of Sindh and others" (2001 S.M.R. 1556).
5. As far as proceedings in the judicial inquiry is concerned, same is not bar to register second FIR.
The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 10.06.2015 passed by learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which is maintained.
Resultantly, this writ petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed.