SH. NAJAM-UL-HASAN, J.--- This writ petition has been filed for the registration of case in respect of an occurrence which took place in the nigh between 29/30.12.2009 in which two persons, namely , Rukiya Bibi, sister of the petitioner and her husband, namely , Bashir Ahmad died. The matter was reported on 30.12.2009 but no allegation was levelled against anyone and only suspicion was shown on the point of motive against Nazir Ahmad, respondent No. 3 who was brother of Bashir Ahmad, deceased. The matter was entered into roznamcha and later on inquiry was conducted by the learned Magistrate under Section 174, Cr.P.C. Post-mortems of the dead-bodies were, conducted and the cause .of death was found excessive burns. On 14.12.201 1, the learned Magistrate completed inquiry and did not find anything indicating commission of cognizable offence. In the intervening period, the petitioner filed a petition under Sections 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C. before the ex-officio Justice of the Peace which was accepted on 19.01.2010 and the S.H.O. of the concerned police station was directed to register a case. This order was assailed by respondent No. 3 in. Writ Petition No. 1322 of 2010 and vide order dated 29.10.2010 the order of ex-officio Justice of the Peace was set-aside. Later on the petitioner filed the present writ petition with the same prayer for registration of case. During pendency of this writ petition the report of the learned Magistrate regarding inquiry .' under Section 174, Cr.P.C. was received and it was observed that no cognizable offence has been committed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as an allegation and even the motive was assigned at the very first stage against the respondent No. 3 so the matter should have been properly investigated after registration of case; that the inquiry under Section 174, Cr.P.C. does not debar registration of case as the same only relates to the cause of death. Reliance in this respect has been made on case titled Khizar Hayat and others vs. District Magistrate and others (PLD 1995 Lahore 433). Learned counsel states that as apparently a cognizable offence was committed, the case should have been registered under Section 154, Cr.P.C., and should have been investigated and proceeded in accordance with law .
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 states that respondent is brother of Bashir Ahmad, deceased. Further states that during inquiry under Section 174, Cr.P.C. statement of many persons who are close relatives of the deceased were recorded and all of them rather stated that deceased died because of accidental fire; that there is no eye-witness and now the report under Section 174, Cr.P.C. is available which indicates that no cognizable of fence was made out so this petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Learned law officer after going through the record states that during inquiry proceedings, statements of many persons were recorded and it transpired that the deceased died because of accidental fire.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the available record.
6. The matter relates to the year 2009. An inquiry in this matter was conducted by a judicial officer and report under Section 174, Cr.P.C. was prepared. The same indicates that no cognizable offence was made out in this matter . In the inquiry proceedings, it rather came to light that the occurrence was result of accidental fire. The post-mortem reports and even the report of chemical examiner regarding visceras of the deceased do not indicate, commission of any cognizable offence. Anyhow , the petitioner has got right to file a criminal complaint, if still-aggrieved. This petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.