SAMAN RAFAT IMTIAZ, J. Petitioner has invoked the Constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court by way of filing instant writ petition seeking direction for Respondents No.2 (Superintendent of Police (Complaints), Islamabad and Respondent No.3 (Station House Officer, Koral, Islamabad) to register FIR against proposed accused persons.
2. Brief facts as per Memo of Petition are that the Petitioner submitted an application to the Respondents No. 2 & 3 alleging therein that on 06.11.2021 at about 10.00 a.m. (i) M/s Gul Asghar son of Sardar Ali, (ii) Tanvir, and (iii)
Shakeel, (ii) and (iii) are both sons of Gul Asghar, residents of Pharwala, Rawalpindi (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed Accused Persons No. 1, 2 & 3") armed with weapons and axe entered the Petitioner's house in order to forcefully dispossess her and family from the property where she resides in. That they had attacked her previously also with the same intention due to which she had filed an application for registration of criminal case before the Police Station, Koral, Islamabad.
3. On the date in question in the current proceedings, the Petitioner alleged that upon entering her house, they ripped her clothes and with intention to commit murder started shoving and beating her. Listening to the hue and cries raised by the Petitioner her son namely, Murad Ali Shah reached home and tried to save the Petitioner from the Proposed Accused Persons. One of the Proposed Accused Persons started firing which hit the construction material lying inside the Petitioner 's house. During the altercation one of the Proposed Accused Persons dropped his pistol which was picked up by the Petitioners' son, who in order to save their lives and honor shot at the non- vital parts of the Proposed Accused Persons which hit Proposed Accused Person No. 1 on his leg who fell down on the ground while the other Proposed Accused Persons escaped. Petitioner and her son called 15 Police for help but to no avail. Petitioner 's son fearing and sensing another attack by the family and friends of the Proposed Accused Persons, fled the place, whereas, the Petitioner took refuge in the nearby house of some relative.
4. However , due to inaction on the part of Respondents No. 2 & 3, the Petitioner filed petition u/s 22-A & B Cr.P.C., before Respondent No.1/learned Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge-II, Islamabad-East, who dismissed the same vide order dated 05.01.2022 ("Impugned Order") .
5. It is pertinent to mention that a criminal case FIR No. 925/21 dated 06.11.2021 u/s 324/34 P.P.C. was also registered by the Proposed Accused Person No. 1 against the Petitioner 's son and two other accused namely Aneel Tajamal and Chan Shah. It has been alleged by the Proposed Accused Person No. 1 in this FIR that Petitioner 's son along with two other persons attacked him and his two sons with 30 bore Pistol with the intention to kill them as a result whereof Accused Person No.1 and Accused Person No.3 were injured.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the order passed by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace suffers from misreading and non-reading of material available on record as well as legal perversity; that the Petitioner's son had previously filed application against the Proposed Accused Persons; that the Petitioner reported the matter to the concerned Police Station but due to inaction of the Respondents No. 2 & 3 filed petition before Respondent No.1/learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge-II, Islamabad-East on 10.12.2021, whereas, the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace observed in the Impugned Order that the registration of case appears to be a counterblast of the FIR registered against the Petitioner; and that the learned Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace dismissed the petition on the basis of Police Report without appreciating the real facts. Learned counsel prayed for setting aside of the Impugned Order .
7. Conversely , learned State Counsel prayed for dismissal of present petition while submitting that according to the Police Report submitted before the learned Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace, there is history of enmity between parties and Proposed Accused Persons had lodged FIR No. 925 dated 06.11.2021 u/s 324/34 P.P.C. at Police Station Koral, Islamabad against the Petitioner and Petitioner 's request for registration of FIR appears to be a counterblast of the same. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge / Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace is well reasoned.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned State Counsel and have also perused the Impugned Order as well as available record.
9. Perusal of the Impugned Order shows that the sole ground given for the dismis sal of the Petitioner 's petition is the FIR No. 925/21 filed by the Proposed Accused Person No.1 against the "Petitioner party" based on which an inference has been drawn that the registration of case sought by the Petitioner is a counterblast.
10. It is true 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 persons. If that were allowed, then there would be two FIRs for every crime. However , merely because an FIR is pending involving some of the same parties it does not ipso facto preclude the registration of another FIR. Where second FIR is based on an indepen dent incident other than the one which was the subject matter of the previously registered FIR, the second FIR can be registered.
11. However , the Impugned Order is devoid of any reasoning as to how it was concluded that the Petitioner 's petition constitutes a counterblast rather it has been passed in a mechanical manner with a single line that the registration of case through the petition before the Respondent No. 1 appears to be a counter blast.
12. In so far as the Petitioner 's application submitted to the Respondents No.2 & 3 is concerned, the Petitioner has alleged that the alleged occurrence took place at 10:00 am on 06-11-2021 inside her house which is located at Bagh Jogiyun, Tehsil & District, Islamabad. On the other hand, perusal of FIR No. 925/21 reveals that it has been lodged by Proposed Accused Person No. 1 in respect of an alleged occurrence that took place at 10:30 am on 06- 11-2021 at the agricultural land belonging to him situated at Bagh Jogiyun, Tehsil & District, Islamabad.
13. Moreover , the Petitioner is not named as accused in said FIR No. 925/21 and Petitioner has also named Proposed Accused Persons No. 2 and 3 in her application apart from the Propos ed Accused No. 1. Therefore, it appears that the alleged place of occurrence in both cases may be different and that even otherwise the parties in FIR No. 925/21 and in the Petitioner 's application are not all the same. In such circumstances where the location and time of the alleged occurrences as well as proposed accused persons are different, then the second FIR cannot be described as pertaining to the same occurrence.
14. In view of the above, instant petition is allowed and the Impugned Order is hereby set-aside as it has not been passed on correct appreciation of facts and law. The S.H.O., Police Station Koral, Islamabad is directed to record the statement of the Complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and in case a cognizable offence is made out then F.I.R. is to be registered and investigation is to be carried out.