' ZAHEER-UD-DIN KAKAR, J.---A constitutional petition was filed against the order dated 23.07.2016 "the impugned order" passed by the learned Justice of the Peace/Sessions Judge, Mastung "the trial court" whereby an application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Filed by the respondent/applicant No,1 was accepted and directed the SHO Police Station City, Mastung for registration of the FIR.
2. Precisely, stated the facts of the case are that the respondent No,1/applicant filed an application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Before the trial court with averments that his son namely Abdul Majeed was serving in Airport Security Force (ASF) and he was sent to Rawalpindi for commando course.
According to the applicant, on 13.3.2016 Abdul Majeed came to Mastung and he was murdered at Aziz Abab Link road by unknown persons. He approached the SHO, Saddar Police Station, Mastung time and hgain for lodging FIR regarding murder of Abdul Majeed, but no heed was paid by the SHO on the pretext that an FIR bearing No,13/2016 has already been lodged against such incident.
The trial court called a report from SHO and after hearing arguments of both the sides, accepted the application vide impugned order and directed the SHO Police Station City, Mastung for registration of the FIR. Feeling aggrieved from the impugned order, the Additional Prosecutor General filed the instant petition.
3. The learned APG contended that the impugned order is contrary to the facts and principle of natural justice because the SHO P.S Mastung had already registered the FIR No,13/2016 under sections 302, 511, 397, 34, P.P.C. Against the real culprits in which necessary investigation has been completed and challan was submitted before the trial court. It is further contended that as per FIR No,13/2016, on 13.3.2016 Ali Ahmed complainant along with his brothers Jalil Ahmed and Samiullah were riding the motorcycle towards their house. On the way, at Link road, Aziz Abad, unknown accused persons stopped them and tried to snatch the motorcycle, but the complainant Ali Ahmed overpowered the deceased Abdul Majeed and due to firing of co-accused Ali Ahmed and the deceased sustained injuries. Finally he prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondent No,1 strongly opposed' the petition and defended the impugned order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available.
Prima fade, it appears that it is a case of two versions. On the one hand, the respondent No,1 claim is that his son namely Abdul Majeed (deceased) was serving in ASF for last three years and he was sent to Rawalpindi for Commando training and on the fateful day, when he, reached to Mastug from Rawalpindi, he was murdered by unknown persons. The father of. Abdul Majeed submitted an application for registration of the case to SHO, but he refused to register the case. While on the other hand the petitioner's claim is that on the fateful night the deceased along with his two companions tried to snatch motorcycle from Ali Ahmed. The attempt was resisted and in the meanwhile, due to firing of his companions Abdul Majeed died, while Ali Ahmed sustained injuries.
6. The manner in which the two versions came on the record, it will be the trial court to come to, exact conclusion. It is by now settled that there is no embargo upon registration of second FIR in respect of different version given by the aggrieved party of the same occurrence and the only impediment is that second FIR should not contain the facts for the mere amplification of the first version. No hard and fast rules or principles can be laid down as to when a second FIR can or should. Be recorded. The matter of registration of second FIR is to be seen in the context of the totality of the circumstances and the allegations of every case. Absolutely, there is no bar against the registration of second FIR regarding the same occurrence. In this regard, reference can be made to the case of Mrs. Ghanwa Bhutto v. Government of Sindh (PLD 1997 Karachi 119), wherein the order of registration of 3rd FIR was passed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, which was, subsequently maintained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Wajid All Khan Durani v. Government of Sindh (2001 SCM R 1556). The learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh while dealing with the proposition, in paragraph 9 of the judgment observed as under:
7. "9. Reference to the case-law, therefore, indicates that there is no hard and fast rule that a second FIR cannot be registered in respect of a different version given by an aggrieved party of the same occurrence. If information is subsequently given to a police officer, which discloses a different offence, also cognizable by the police, then unless it is a mere amplification of the first version, it must be recorded by the police. Therefor.-direction to the police to record a second FIR would depend upon the circumstances of each case. If true facts in respect of an occurrence are not reflected by the first FIR, then refusal to record a genuine version of the same occurrence would not be justified. The question has, therefore, to be examined' in the light of the circumstances of a particular case."
7. In view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can safely be inferred that if -a distinct and separate cognizable offence is disclosed and no factual inquiry is or trial can be held without properly appreciating and considering the two versions, then another FIR has to be registered. The learned prosecutor has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, warranting interference.
' Thus, for what has been discussed above, the petition is dismissed.