ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J .----Through the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed as under: "It is, therefore respectfully prayed that impugned order dated 08.05.2018 passe d by Additional Sessions Judge Sariab, Quetta being ultra vires and illegal may kindly be set aside.
Further the respondent No.2 may kindly be ordered to lodge FIR against the accused persons mentioned in application under section 22-A Cr.P.C., in accordance with relevant section, in the interest of justice."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the FIR No. 22 of 2018 dated 24.03.2018 was registered with PS Shalkot on complaint of one Shah Muhammad again st the petitioner for offence under sections 302, 343 and 34, P.P.C., with the allegation that the petitioner Amanullah and co-accused persons abducted Mst. Nazia Bibi and today i.e. on 243.2018 dead body of the deceased Mst. Nazia Bibi was found in a ground near Dilshad Karez Quetta. On the other hand according to the petitioner in fact Mst. Nazia Bibi was kidnapped by her family members; that on 24.03.2018 the Mst. Nazia Bibi and her husband came to the court for attending the court proceedings; that after attending the court proceedings they were kidnapped by the family members of the deceased Mst. Nazia Bibi, whereafter it came to the knowledge of the family of the petitioner that Mst. Nazia Bibi was murdered/killed and her dead body was thrown in Akhtar Abad. It is alleged by the petitioner that the allegation leveled against him was fabricated and in fact the lady got marrie d with her own will and was spending life with her husband Noorullah (cousin of the petitioner) and the family of the deceased (Mst. Nazia Bibi) murdered/killed the lady Nazia Bibi in the name of honor; that certain application were moved by the petitioner against the accused persons for lodgment of the FIR but since they are influential persons, therefore the concerned authorities were reluctant to proceed with the matter against them. The petitioner filed an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sariab under Section 22-A Cr.P.0 but the same was dismissed vide order dated 8.5.2018.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the entire record.
4. The petitioner claimed himself to be innocent in the FIR lodged against him and has come forward to lodge a second FIR for the same incident for which the proposed accused has already lodged an FIR and challan thereof has also been submitted. Perusal of counter version FIR of the application, which was moved before the Additional Sessions Judge reflect the same facts and circumstances regarding commission of alleged offence, which has already reported by the proposed accused in the first FIR.
5. We have asked from learned counsel for the petitioner that how second FIR in respect of the same incident, under the circumstances of the case, can be permitted to be registered against the private respondents? He submitted that under the law second FIR with regard to same incident can be registered. We are not impressed with the arguments of learned counsel for the reason that when a case has been registered in respect of an occurrence, no second case can be registered giving a counter-version thereof by the accused person. If this were so in I each criminal case, there will be one FIR lodged by the complainant party and another by the accused because it is not likely that any of the accused will not have a counter-version of the allegation made against him in the FIR that would mean that for each crime, two FIRs should be registered. This of course is not the law. In the case law reported as Sughran Bibi v. The State (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 595), it has been observed that after entering the first information relating to commission of a cognizable offence in the prescribed book, i.e. after registration of an FIR the matter became a "case" and therefore every step taken in the ensuing investigation was a step taken in that case and second FIR was not allowed in the cited case.
6. For the forgoing reasons and the case law cited supra, we are of the considered opinion that now law has been well established that no direction can be issued for lodgment of second FIR when first FIR has C already been registered in respect of the incident for giving counter-version of the other side. Consequently , the petition is hereby dismissed.