' NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI, J.---Through the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks following relief: "In the above circumstances, it is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the order dated 19.9.2016 passed by the respondent No,1 may kindly be set aside and the petition titled as Javed Iqbal v. SHO etc., under section 22-A of Cr.P.C., filed by the respondent No,4 may kindly be dismissed with special costs, in the best interest of speedy, real and natural justice.
' It is further prayed that the impugned order dated 19.9.2016 passed by the respondent No,1 may kindly be suspended till the final disposal of this petition, in the best interest of speedy, real and natural justice.
' It is again prayed that any other ground, which has not been specifically taken at this time, may also please be allowed to be pressed at the time of final arguments.
' It is also prayed that because this is second petition filed in this matter by the present petitioner, the files of W.P. No,1327/2015 and W.P. No,1624/2015, allowed on 27.5.2016, by the Worthy Bench-V of this Honorable Court may kindly be perused."
2. Facts in brief are that petitioner is supervising and managing all the affairs of Farm House situated in Plot No,29, Orchard Scheme, Murree Road, Islamabad and has employed 3 and 4 workers to look after and safeguard the plot. It is contended that in the said vicinity some persons, namely Sabir Abbasi, Aamer Abbasi, Waved Abbasi, Nasir Iqbal, Tariq and other unknown land grabbers are also residing. They are teasing and torturing the owners of land and also collecting BHATTA. They also extended threats to the petitioner as well as owner of Farm House and demanding heavy Bhatta. In case of refusal, they will face the dire consequences. It is further alleged that on 11.4.2015 at about 2:30 a.m. (at night) said persons along with 9/10 unknown persons duly armed with deadly weapons came to the Farm House, extended threats to vacate the said farm house forthwith. In the meantime, sons of Mushtaq and Ali Zaman came and they also beaten the workers of said Farm House. It is further contended that the above said Sabir Abbasi and his companions are land grabbers and they 'are trying to grab the said farm House, which is owned and possessed by Gohar Rasheed. In this regard, petitioner submitted an application to respondent No,3 on 11.4.2015, but the local police is reluctant to proceed against them. Thereafter petitioner filed a petition under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Against respondent No,3 for registration of FIR.
Meanwhile respondent No,4 also filed a petition under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Against respondent No,3 as counter blast. Respondent No,1/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace disposed of both the petitions by a single order dated 29.4.2015, which was gross-violation of section 22-A(6) of Cr.P.C. As well as section 56(e) of Specific Relief Act. It is further contended in the writ petition that petitioner filed writ petition No,1327/15 and respondent No,4 filed writ petition No,1624/15 in this Court and learned Single Judge of this Court allowed both the petitions by a single order dated 27.5.2016.While setting aside impugned order and directed the trial court to decide both the petitions in accordance with law. After remand of both the file, respondent No,1 heard arguments of both the parties and accepted both the petitions vide order dated 19.9.2016 and directed respondent No,3 to register FIRs in the light of both applications. Hence, the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is not according to law and facts is self-contradictory and is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside; that respondent No,1 has failed to legally act upon the material placed on record of the petition and ignored the reports/comments of Investigating Officer about the applications of both the parties; that the order passed by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is without jurisdiction as well as without applying judicial mind, which is not maintainable in the eye of law; that respondent No,1 had not acted judicially while passing the impugned order. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon case laws reported in "2014 M LD 1451 and 2014 PCr.LJ 1146":
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The contention of petitioner that second FIR of the same incident could not be registered in my view is not justified. In para-5 of the judgment passed by this Court in writ petition No,1327 of 2015 dated 27.5.2016 it is explicitly clear that both the petitions filed by either party were allowed, impugned order dated 29.4.2015 was set aside, consequently both, the applications filed by the respective petitioners were deemed to be pending, directed to be decided in accordance with law.
The observation made by the learned Court in Para-5 of the judgment clarified the legal position, which is reproduced herein below for convenience:- "Admittedly, civil litigation viz-a-viz the property in question is pending in the Civil Courts. However, applications made by the petitioner in the instant petition as well as in writ petition No,1624/15 were filed alleging certain facts and the SHO did not register FIR, therefore, applications under section 22-A, Cr. P. C. Were filed for the needful before respondent No,1. Learned Justice of Peace dismissed applications on the ground that civil litigation is pending and the parties should wait for the outcome of civil litigation. Respondent No,1 while passing the order erred in exercise of its jurisdiction inasmuch as under section 22-A, Cr. P. C. Justice of Peace may issue an appropriate direction to the Police authorities on a complaint regarding non-registration of a criminal case. In this behalf if under the facts and circumstances a cognizable offence is made out then an appropriate direction is to be issued and in case no offence is made out then the order is to be passed accordingly in this behalf, respondent No,1 is to take into account all the factors including report of Police. Reliance is placed on case titled "Muhammad Jamshaid v. Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/AD&SJ, Lahore etc." (2014 YLR 2570).
6. To my utmost reverence, I disagreed with the analogy of registration of more than one FIRs and hardly cross-version is to be recorded during investigation of the same FIR.
7. In this regard, I would like to submit some example for the sake of arguments, FIR lodged by one amongst two, later on proved to be false, then such FIR has to be cancelled along with burial of cross-version with that investigation, therefore, cross cases by recording separate version is a different connotation equated with the cross-version taken in the FIR already registered. Again a question raised in the mind with regard to investigation if cross-version is not recorded or it is spoiled during investigation, then no way remained with the complainant of same incident having different version to cry. On the contrary recording of two separate FIRs giving rise to different investigations may be conducted by same I.O. But ultimately, same could be subject to supervision of the concerned Judicial Magistrate to whom the complainant approached or higher forum being aggrieved. He must have an opportunity to either get the investigation transferred by making application to Ex-officio Justice of Peace or any other authority having power to do so or even on conclusion of investigation in respect of FIR, the aggrieved person may approach higher Court for successive or fresh or further investigation if complainant established bias against the Investigating Officer or his mischief. Only recording of version could not create such right of complainant as guaranteed by procedural law, therefore, it is necessary to have an independent case for same offence, there appears two different persons seeking lodging of separate FIRs, The legal analogy behind the scheme of law is that each case has to be decided on its own merits. One cannot step into the shoes of another in a criminal case nor it is warranted by law.
8. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the clear opinion that prayer sought in the present petition is quite unjustified rather beyond the sketched of boundaries of law. Same is therefore declined and as a result, instant petition is dismissed in limine.