MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, C J.--This petition was filed with the facts that petitioner No,1, Independent Media Corporation (Pvt.) Limited was license holder of channel Geo News from the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), while petitioner No,2 was Group Chief Executive Editor in Chief of Daily Jang, petitioner No,3 was the Chief Executive Officer of Geo TV Network, and petitioners Nos, 4 and 5 were the hosts of current affairs programme Aaps Ki Baat. That on 20th January 2017 newspaper Public Eye Islamabad published a news article relating to allotment of a piece of land in Lahore to General Retired Raheel Sharif. That this news was already telecasted on a number of channels, and was also discussed in the programme Aaps Ki Baat on 24th January 2017. That rival media channel engineered a campaign against them (petitioners), only to create hype and to exploit the public sentiments.
2. It was case of the petitioners that the channel runs by the petitioners was gove rned by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2002 (PEMRA Ordinance 2002), thus any violation of the terms of license have to be dealt there under . That a provision of filing of a complaint before the Council of Complaints, which had already taken cognizance of the matter , thus debarred any further proceedings, but on same set of allegations FIR No, 24 of 2017 was registered on 24th January 2017 at Police Station Steel Town Maleer Karachi followed by FIRs twelve (12) in numbers were registered all over Pakistan, out of which eight (08) were registered in Balochistan.
That the petitioners were nominated as accused in the referred to cases. That the reports were registered in different areas on different dates, thus factually not possible for them (petitioners) to pursue the cases and to assure their physical appearances, or to obtain the bail from the respective courts. That the trial if held before different courts, and decisions given in contrary terms, would not only prejudice their rights but also violate the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 13 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan (The Constitution).
Registration of FIRs for a single concurrence in different cities with identical facts were claimed to be in different cities with identical facts were claimed in violation of Articles 4, 9, 10-A, 13 to 16, 24 and 25 of the Constitution. The maintainability of the cases so registered was objected while asserting that the offences alleged were against the State, thus no court was empowered to take cognizance, unless the complaint lodged on order of the Government, Federal or Provincial. It was with reference to Sections 196 and 196-A Criminal Procedure Code (Cr . P. C).
3. The petition was with the prayer: "A. The Hon'ble Court may order that all 08 FIRs mentioned below or any other FIR that may not be in the knowledge of the Petitioners registered within the province of Balochistan containing allegations regarding the current affairs program 'Aaps Ki Baat' dated 24.01.2017 and for which the FIRST FIR in Police Station Steel Town Malir Karachi has already been registere d be quashed so that the Petitioners could take bail from one Court, join one investigation and be tried once in view of Article 13 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
S. NO.FIR NO. SECTION POLICE STATIONPLACE 1 34/2017 6-2- 2017505/124-A/123-A/121-A/153/34 P .P.C. City Sibbi Sibbi 2 07/2014 6-2- 2017120-B/123-A/124-A/109/ 34 P .P.C. 29-B Telegraph Act, 6/7 ATADeera Bugti Deera Bugti 3 05/2017 7-2- 2017123-A/34 P .P.C. Taftan Chaghi 4 58/2017 7-2- 2017120-B/123-A/124-A/109/34 P .P.C. 6/7 ATA, 29-B Telegraph ActHub City Lasbella 5 03/2017 60-2- 2017123-A/124-A P.P.C. Thaal KhusdarKhuzdar 6 06/2017 8-2- 2017120-B/123-A/124-A /153-A/109/34 P .P.C. 29-B Telegraph Act, 6/7 ATACith Qallat Qallat 7 23/2017 9-2- 2017121-A123-A/124-A/ 153/505 P .P.C. Gwadar Gwadar 8 25/2017 9-2- 2019120-B/123-A/124-A/109/34 P .P.C. 29-B Telegraph Act, 7 ATACity Chaman Qilah Abdullah B. That in the meanwhile, till the disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may kindly restrain the Respondents/ law enforcing agencies working under the Respondent 1-2 'from taking any coerci ve action against the Petitioners on the basis of. any FIRs mentioned in Para 20 of the' instant Petition or any other FIR that may be registered after filing of the instant petition with regard to the current af fairs program 'Aaps Ki Baat' dated 24.01.2017.
C. That in view of the unique and unprecedented circumstances on the basis of which the instant petition is being filed, this Hon'ble Court may pass any other just and appropriate order that it may deem fit to do complete justice to the petitioners."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners in repetition to the stance taken in the petition, only added that after registration of first FIR it was incumbent on the Police either refuse to register the case, or on having knowledge about the actual facts cancelled the FIRs registered subsequently , but it was not done in complete negation of law.
It was urged that the FIR registered prior in time would proceed, while the subse quent have to be quashed. He pressed that on the stated principle only FIR No, 24 of 2017 Police Station Steel Town Maker Karachi was to proceed, and there be a direction for quashment of subsequent reports. He supported his assertion by placing reliance on: Mahmood Yasir v . The State 2008 YLR Lahore 601 Rehmat Khan v. DG Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise) PLD 2000 Karachi 181 Badar Alam Bacjiani v . The State through Chairman NAB 2010 PCr .LJ 1988 It was added by the learned counsel that the offence alleged against the petitione rs could only be dealt under the PEMRA Ordinance 2002, which was already done, and a decision was given by the Authority on 24th October 2017, thus further proceeding of the matter surely amounted to double jeopardy , in contravention of Article 13 of the Constitution, which placed a bar on prosecution or punishment for same of fence more than once.
5. In reply the learned Advocate General was with the assertions that the petitioners have already approached the Apex Court for the purpose, and decision awaited, thus the instant petition was not maintainable. It was contended that instead of invoking constitutional jurisdiction the trial court might have been applied either for quashment of the proceedings, or for pre-mature acquittal, which had not been done. That the Police Reports, pursuant to the cases registered were already before the trial court, and the cognizance of the offence had already been taken, in view when the, cases were before the court of competent jurisdiction, thus instead of filing the petition in hand they might have availed the remedy provided by Sections 265-K and 249-A Cr.P.C.
6. In the case in hand a program was telecasted on Geo News Channel on 24th January 2017, and the material aired resulted in starting of a campaign against the petitioners, stated to be an anti state activity , the act was claimed on part of rival TV Channels. This resulted in initiation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
While at-least twelve (12) reports were lodged at different places, out of which eight (08) were registered in different cities of Balochistan, details whereof narrated in the preceding paras. It was evident that out of these eight (08) three were registered on 6th February 2017, while the remaining were registered on 7th, 8th and 9th February 2017. All these reports were of same incident with identical facts. While the persons nominated were also the same. The cases though at present were before the courts, on receipt of the Police Reports, but the trial yet to commence for the reason of a restraint order , interim in nature, passed by this court on 13th March 2017. In view of the bar as contained in Article 13 of the Constitution the main question would be that what would be the legal course, and which of the cases would proceed in described state of facts. The petitioners appeared with the plea that at the most the first FIR i,e, FIR No,2 4 of 2017 has to proceed, while there might be a direction for quashment of the 'remaining cases. As far the replies of the respondents were concerned, were of less help on the issue.
7. Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) deals with the registration of First Information Report (FIR). Section 154 Cr.P.C, a specific provision, deals with the information of commission of a cognizable offence. This information is to be given to the Officer-in-Charge of a Police Station, who has to reduce it into writing in a book maintained for the purpose duly signed by the complainant. The law set into action on receipt of such report, followed by the investigation as provided by Section 156 Cr.P.C. and onward, ended on submission of Report as required by Section 173 Cr.P.C. All this for an offence cognizable in nature. The object of registration of an FIR on receiving information about commission of an act constituting a cognizable offence to initiate criminal proceedings, but it no way means that the persons against whom allegations were levelled in fact guilty of the offences, which only depends on investigation. The law made it obligatory on an Officer-in-Charge of Police Station to record FIR if the information given constitute an offence cognizable in nature. The law empowered such officer to investigate and to determine that whether the evidence is sufficient or insuf ficient and to adopt the course as contained in Sections 169 and 170 Cr.P.C. but in each case he has to submit final report as required by Section 173 Cr.P.C. This confer power to the Magistrate to adopt the course as provided by Section 173(3) Cr.P.C. or to deal with the case under Section 190 Cr.P.C. In addition the material collected during course of investigation though become part of the Police Report, but there will be no addition in contents of FIR, which is only the initial report recorded to initiation of the proceedings. Rather , the material collected subsequently is always in furtherance of the initial report.
8. The petitioner pressed that the act for which they have been nominated as accused have already been dealt under the provisions of PEMRA Ordinance 2002, thus no further proceedings could be held against them, not supported by any provision of law. The decision of the Authority dated 25th October 2017 on recommendations of Council for Complaints (Karachi and Lahore) imposed fine on Geo News in exercise of powers under Section 29
(6) PEMRA Ordinance 2002. It was for violation of terms and conditions of license. No criminal liability was dealt by the Authority .
9. The only question before this court is that which of the FIR would hold the field and the petitioners have to face the trial therein. Without going into merit of the case the procedure as provided under Chapter XIII of the Code is to be adopted and for one offence there might be only one trial, an established principle. In the case in hand FIRs though stated to be twelve in numbers for the same act alleged on part of the petitioners. The program was aired on 24th January 2017, while the FIRs against them, registered in different cities of Balochistan, in month of February 2017. First Information Report No,24 of 2017 Police Station Steel Town Maleer Karachi was registered on 28th January 2017, though prior in time, but this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to this extent. As far the areas lies within the territorial jurisdiction of this court the reports registered not only could be considered, but an appropriate order could have been passed. By virtue of Section 185 Cr.P.C. a High Court is duly empowered to determine the court which ought to enquire into or try any offence. Subsection (2) of the Section 185 Cr.P.C. though with a wider power to decide the court dealing with same offence, but the condition precedent is that if two or more courts have taken cognizance of same offence, the proceedings where commenced first may be directed to try such case. In case in hand no decision can be given to the effect due to lack of material, as nothing placed before the court from which it could be determined that in which case the proceedings have been commenced.
10. Apart from the described legal position the question still remains that which of the case shall proceed as the main request of the petitioners restricted to the extent of trial in one case and quashment of the remaining FIRs. A safeguard provided by the Constitution and also by the law that a person might not face prosecution and punishment for same offence more than once, thus in view of the principle, as there is nothing before us from which it could be determined that trial had been commenced in any case, thus the report which was filed prior in time will hold the field and the subsequent reports for the same incident may be treated as statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, a piece of evidence in support of the initial report. The Constitution guaranteed fair trial, while fair investigation of a case also a right assured. In view the subsequent reports always treated in furtherance of FIR reported prior in time. It is by now an established principle that for one incident there might be only one FIR, while during investigation, after the registration, the Investigating Officer is duty bound to record the different version of same incident brought into his notice by different persons, but not as a report, rather as statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in the same case. No separate FIR has to be recorded when any different version of the same incident brought into the notice of the Investigating Officer. It has been decided by the honorable Supreme Court in its judgment dated 23rd May 2018 in Human Rights Case No.10842-P of 2018 Mst Sughra Bibi v. The State . Thus by now it has been settled that there will be no counter version except one FIR for one incident. The Investigating Officer is duty bound to submit the Police Report with the purview of Section 173 Cr.P.C, with the true facts, irrespective of the information given by the first informant, or during investigation any other version brought to his notice by any other person.
11. If assessed on the principle as determined by the honorable Supreme Court the FIRs, eight (08) in numbers, arise from same incident, though registered on different dates on complaints of different persons, but the persons nominated were the same, for the act common in nature. Though the Police duly empowered to seek for cancellation of cases on strength of Rule 24:7 of the Police Rules 1934, but this power was not exercised at the relevant time. It resulted in registration of eight FIRs with the numbers 3 of 2017 Police Station Thaal Khuzdar , 5 of 2017 Police Station Taftan, 6 of 2017 Police Station City Kalat, 7 of 2017 Police Station Dera Bugti, 23 of 2017 Police Station Gwadar , 25 of 2017 Police Station City Chaman, 34 of 2017 Police Station City Sibi, and 58 of 2017 Police Station Hub City with identical facts and acts on part of the persons named.
12. As discussed above in view of the determined principle out of eight FIRs the FIR lodged prior in time i.e. FIR No. 3 of 2017 Police Station Thaal Khuz dar shall remain intact and shall proceed, while the remaining are to be quashed. It is for the reasons that co-exis tence of the remaining FIRs not only amount to abuse of process of law, but also contrary to the spirit of Article 13 of the Constitution. It further affect the rights as guaranteed by the Articles 4, 9, and 10A of the Constitution, this not sustainable. Resultantly the petitioners have to face the trial in FIR No.3 of 2017 Police Station Thaal Khuzdar in accordance with the Law . The petition is disposed of in the above terms.