MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO, J.---Applicant has filed this application for quashing of charge sheet under section 173, Cr.P.C. in FIR No.90/2019 under sections 302, 201, 393, 322, 34, P.P.C. read with section 7, A.T.A., 1997, registered at Police Station Shah Latif Town, Karachi; and directions to respondents to file a fresh such report. The FIR was in fact lodged by the applicant in the capacity of complainant reporting killing by him in self defence of a person, who along with accomplices, decamped from the spot, attempted to commit robbery from him on National Highway near Babar Kanta, Bhains Colony , Karachi on 06.02 2019, when he after withdrawing an amount of Rs.1,000,000/- from bank was going to his house. Subsequently brother of deceased Irshad Ali Ranjhani also lodged a second FIR of the incident arraying applicant and others as accu sed. When both the FIRs were challenged before this court in constitution al jurisdiction, a JIT was ordered to be constituted to investigate both the FIRs in the light of dicta laid down by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 595) .
2. The JIT in its report dated 20.04.2019 submitted to this court through MIT-II in compliance of the said order recommended disposal of second FIR in 'C' class and kept the FIR lodged by applicant alive, however , transposed him as an accused in the case. Accordingly , the charge sheet under section 173, Cr.P.C. followed and the trial court vide order dated 28.05.2019 approved disposal of second FIR under 'C' class and started proceeding against applicant treating him as accused in the trial.
3. Learned defence counsel has argued that transposition of applicant as an accused is illegal, that the story narrated by him shall be considered the only and true version of the incident and the charge sheet based thereon shall be ordered to be filed and the current charge sheet transposing the applicant as an accused shall be quashed. He has relied upon the case Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State reported in PLD 2018 SC 595 in support of his arguments.
4. Learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh has, however , opposed his request.
5. We have considered submissions and perused the record. At the very outset, it may be observed that learned defence counsel has not been able to satisfy us about maintainability of this application for the reliefs sought for.
Nonetheless, we have traversed merits to examine his submissions. Two FIRs of the same incident were registered one by applicant and the other by brothe r of deceased, and when challenged before this court, the investigation exactly in the light of dicta laid down in case of Mst. Sughran Bibi (supra) was ordered to be conducted. Resultantly second FIR was disposed of under 'C' class. But based on collection of evidence in the investigation, the applicant was transposed as an accused. This opinion of I.O. is influenced by different pieces of evidence i.e. statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. of witnesses, A recovery of relevant articles, medical evidence, forensic reports, etc. which the trial court found suf ficient for taking cognizance of of fence and hold a trial.
6. T he case of the applicant that this cannot be done and the charge sheet only on the basis of disclosure of events by applicant shall be made basis for the trial is devoid of any legal sanctuary in that the Investigating Officer in law is not required to be guided and controlled by the story of FIR. If the information collected in the investigation shows the manner of commission of offence, its background and the person(s) who have done it otherwise than the ones expressed in FIR, the complainant's version of events would only be considered as a first information of the incident and nothing more. And which on account of discovery of different facts would not be accepted by the Investigating Officer as a true reflection of incident and he would not be obliged to approve it for the trial. The Investigating Officer is required to unearth actuality of the matter irrespective of version disclosed in FIR and in the process is expected to collect information from all the persons who seem to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. Then based on such collection he has to make a final opinion to be submitted in the court under section 173, Cr.P.C. for holding of a trial. It may be urged that in such process if evidence points unambiguously to the complainant having played accused in the incident, his place would be transposed and he would be made as accused regardless of his status in the FIR.
7. In this case, investigation conducted along the lines of such set pattern has led to discovery of prima facie evidence showing applicant's role in committing murder and his version of self-defence propless. The final report containing such discovery has been accep ted by the trial court after due scrutiny and it has taken cognizance of the offence, and has further proceeded to examine some witnesses in the trial. This development influenced by the fact that there is no corroboratory evidence in support of version of the applicant has outclassed his submission to ask for a fresh charge sheet under section 173, Cr.P.C. affected only by his story . No illegality is found in the chain of events culminating in the trial against the applicant. The application for quashing of the trial against him is therefore misconceived and unsustainable under the law . This being the position, the application is dismissed.