MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The brief facts of the case are highlighted in para-2 of impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Diamer dated 20-12-2016. Para 2 of the said judgment is re- produced for the purpose of convenience:- "The facts leading to instant petition briefly stated are that the petitioners namely Ghafoor son of Gul Khan and 05 others state that on 20 August 2016, at 11:30 p.m. at Gittidass.Babusar Thak Chillas Diamer, Ziaullah son of Abdul Wadood, Abdul Ghafoor son of Shakeer Muhammad, Rizwan son of Muhammad Sharif were sitting on the road site while a white colored car approached them and hit one Abdul Ghafoor who got seriously injured. Thereafter the said car stopped and one Sajid Hawaldar of Naran Police opened indiscriminate firing on the said three persons. Resultantly Abdul Ghafoor son of Shakeer Muhammad and Ziaullah received bullet injuries and died on the spot.
While another person Rizwan who got injured. On 21-08-2016 the petitioners/family members of the said deceased and injured person approached the Police Station Jal for registration of FIR. But the concerned SHO instead of registration of FIR has entered a roznamcha of the Police Station and refused to register the FIR against the respondent No.1 namely Sajid Hawaldar and his other colleague constables who have killed above referred two persons. After refusal of SHO to register the requisite FIR the petitioners had submitted writ petition before the Hon'ble Chief Court Gilgit- Baltistan praying for directing SHO Police Station Jal to register FIR. But the said writ petition has been disposed of directing the petitioners to file a petition before Justice of peace Diamer under section 22-A, Cr. P. C. Hence they have presented this petition."
2. As evident from the above quoted para and para-2 of Criminal Misc. No.209/16, the respondents Nos. 1 to 6 filed a writ petition before this Court, which was disposed of directing the respondents to approach the learned Court of competent jurisdiction under section 22-A, Cr.P.C., as the remedy was also available under the said section and after insertion of section 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C., the writ petition was not entertained by the Superior Judiciary. Para-2 of the petition filed by the State is also re-produced for further clarification, and to set the controversy at rest.
"That the brief facts of the petition under section 22A are that on 20 August, 2016 at about 11:30 p.m. at Gittidass Thak Chillas Diamer, Ziaullah son of Abdul Wadood, Abdul Ghafoor son of Shakeer Muhammad, Rizwan son of Muhammad Sharif and some other were sitting on the road side while a white colored car approached and hit one Abdul Ghafoor who got seriously injured. Thereafter the said car stopped and one Hawaldar Sajid of Naran Police opened indiscrimination fire on the said three persons. Resultantly Abdul Ghafoor add Ziaullah received bullet injuries and died on the spot, while another person Rizwanullah who got injured. On 21-08-2016 respondent Nos.1 to 6, family members of the said deceased and injured persons filed an application in Police Station Jal for registration of FIR. The SHO concerned registered a Roznamcha report. On refusal of registration of FIR by SHO Police Station Jal Diamer the respondents filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan praying for directing SHO Police Station Jal to register an FIR, the said writ petition has been disposed of directing the respondents to file a petition before Justice of peace Diamer under section 22-A, Cr. P. C. (copy of application submitted by respondents Nos.1 to 6 along with Roznamcha report is attached as Annex "B")."
3. The respondents Nos.1 to 6 filed a petition before the learned Justice of the Peace, which was allowed and SHO Police Jal was directed to register the case under the relevant provisions of law and carry out investigation in accordance with law vide order/judgment dated 20-12-2016.
4. The State feeling aggrieved, with the said order/judgment filed the instant petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. for quashment of the orders of the learned Justice of the Peace on multiple grounds.
The learned Dy. Advocate General submitted at bar that the learned justice of the peace has travelled far from his vested jurisdiction and the orders of the learned justice of the peace are nullity in the eyes of law. He further submitted that there is a serious dispute of territorial limits of GilgitBaltistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and both the governments have taken up the matter which is sub judice before a committee of Senate of Pakistan. The learned Dy. Advocate General further submitted that in the past, when an unfortunate incident took place at Lolosar, the FIR was registered at Kaghan Police Station and in the instant case an FIR has already been registered by the Mansera Police and the case is sub judice before the Court of competent jurisdiction of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and in such a scenario the registration of second FIR on the same fact would be an illegal act. However, Dy. Advocate General did not cite any law case or refer any provision of law to support his contention.
5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the real facts of the case have been twisted and a different story of the occurrence has been painted by the Mansera Police to save their fellows from gallows. The learned counsel submitted that actually the Mansera Police in Civies, came in a car and incidentally hit one Abdul Ghafoor, who was seriously injured and when his two companions tried to catch hold of the culprits of the incident, they opened indiscriminate firing and murdered two of the companion of Abdul Ghafoor. One of the alleged accused, who managed his escape, took shelter in a nearby house and while being shifted to Chilas for medical treatment, arrested by the local Police of Diamer. On the following day they were shifted to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, without fulfillment of legal requirement of section 86-A, Cr.P.C., which smacks of the mala fidies of the local Police. The learned counsel further contended that FIRs No.10/87 and 18/2008 were registered at Police Station Jal, though both the occurrences took place far beyond the Gittidass and keeping in view the above past practice the SHO Jal was bound to register the FIR and the orders of learned Justice of the Peace are well reasoned and does not merit interference by this Court.
6. Heard both the parties at a considerable length and record of the case perused minutely.
7. The case in hand carries some factual/legal implications. Under section 235 of Criminal Procedure Code 1898, trial of more than one offence, of the same transaction has to be conducted before one Court. The same section is re-produced as under:- Section 235. Trial for more than one offence. (1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.
(2)Offence falling within two definitions. If the acts alleged constitute an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, each of such offences.
(3)Acts constituting one offence, but constituting when combined a different offence. If several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute when combined a different offence, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, the offence constituted by such acts when combined, and for any offence constituted by any one, or more, of such acts.
When act of same transaction jointly constitute the same offence, can be inquired into and tried within the limits of the Court under whose jurisdiction the act was done or occurred. Section 179 is re-produced as under:- Accused triable in district where act is done or where consequence ensues. When a person is accused of the commission of any offence by reason of anything which had been done, and of any consequence which has ensued, such offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within the limits of whose jurisdiction any such thing has been done, or any such consequence has ensured.
8. When there is a dispute regarding dispute of jurisdiction between two Police Stations regarding where trial of a particular case be conducted, the matter could be settled down by a High Court under section 185(2), Cr.P.C. In the instant case, there is a dispute between the Police of two different provinces and territorial jurisdiction is still under way of final settlement by a committee of Senate of Pakistan. Admittedly two FIRs of previous occurrences were registered at. Police Station Jal. The unfortunate incident was reported by one Abdul Ghafoor son of Gul Khan on 21-08-2016 at 0915 in Police Station Jal. SHO Police Station Jal refused to chalk-out FIR. The provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C. are very clear and an officer of Police Station was required to register the FIR in the relevant book kept in a Police Station under section 154, Cr.P.C. if from a bare reading of an application a cognizable offence was made out then no option was available in the law, with the in-charge of a Police Station to refuse registration of FIR.
9. In the instant case the cursory perusal of Roznamcha shows that a cognizable offence was made out, the genuineness/otherwise of the same was to be ascertained after investigation. The complainant and the families of two deceased could not be left mourning throughout life, for this incident where their nears and dears were allegedly killed and justice was not being provided to them as the earmarked accused were from Police force. The accused of FIR registered with Police Station of present occurrence have been handed over to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, without resorting to the legal formalities and one wonder, that Government of Gilgit-Baltistan did not bother to follow the procedure provided under section 86-A of Criminal Procedure Code 1898 which was mandatory in nature. The learned Dy. Advocate General, stated at bar that he is not aware of any such proceedings if carried out before transfer of accused to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa police.
10. The very insertion of section 22-A into the Cr.P.C. meant to catter for the demands of those helpless complainants who neither have friends at Courts nor have the recourses to sooth the ways itching palm Police officials. To find an honest person in Police uniform at lower level as the experience suggests is a cry for the moon, more than often a genuine complaint remains buried in the archives of Police stations gathers dust and ultimately takes the last hiccups and dies without being addressed, but where someone feeds these white elephants then not only the FIR but proceeding which resulted from the same crown him with a victory, the language mandate and wisdom hammered in the section in question and directives contain therein are quite simple and easy to understand but unfortunately the judicial experiments and the desire to infuse novelty in the same has made it an experimental pig and has defected the same, the purpose of the of the office of justice of peace and he is being so 24 hours of the day carries them behind and that very theme is to pull those people out of the swamp who knock the door of justice to get their grievance addressed, shying off from passing and unequivocal and categorical order directing SHO to lodge FIR against the culprits as humiliating for the whole system of dispensing justice, a justice of peace is bound to direct the SHO to record the version of complainant as per section 154, Cr.P.C. without least hesitation if the complainant depends the existence of cognizable offence/offences in it, moreover a justice of peace while deciding a petition under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. show refrain from making a mention of alternate in shape of private complaint and must take heart to direct the concerned police officials to lodge FIR instead of beating about the bush and writing that he should proceed according to law. Once a justice of peace throws the ball in the Court of Police it solely comes their domain to treat such an order in letter and spirit and then the investigations in accordance with law.
11.The result of above discussion is that the petition filed by the State is dismissed and the order of the learned Justice of peace dated 20-12-2016 is upheld. The SHO Police Station Jal is directed to follow the directions of Court in the above referred judgment. However the SHO concerned shall proceed with the case strictly in accordance with law and will out the investigations without being influenced by any quarter and by any observations made in the above judgment.
12.The petition is disposed of in the above terms.