RUSTAM S.SIDHWA, J.- This is a constitutional petition filed by Pervaiz Akhtar, petitioner, seeking a declaration that the registration of FIR No.27 at the instance of Fazal Din at Police Station Nankana Sahib on 17.1.1987 is illegal and without lawful authority and that the same be cancelled and expunged from the register of FIRs maintained at that ploice station.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on the statement of Pervaiz Akhtar, petitioner, a case FIR No.12 was registered on 9.1.1987 at 12.10 p.m. At Police Station Nankana Sahib, District Sheikhupura, under sections 307/148/149 PPC. It was stated inter alia in the FIR that Abdul Hameed, who was empty handed, and Ghulam Farid, Muhammad Ali, Javed, Muhammad Latif, Rashid and Mujahid Aslam, all armed with shot guns, opened attack on the complainant party with their respective weapons and as a resuIt of the same, Pervaiz Akhtar, petitioner, Khushi Muhammad, Safdar, Ali Muhammad and Nazir Muhammad received fire-arm injuries.
The motive for the occurrence was that three days prior to the occurrence, Rashid, Majeed, Aslam and Javed, accused, who were drunkards, had, whilst passing by the house of the complainant party, been disorderly, as a resuIt of which they had exchanged abusive language with the complainant party and some scuffle had also taken place. It was also alleged that on the previous evening on 8.1.1987 the said four persons had also, whilst passing by the house of the complainant in drunken condition, abused the members of the complainant party.
3. It appears that Fazal Din, one of the members of the accused party, on the same day i.e. 9.1.1987, submitted a written application to the SHO, Police Station Nankana Sahib, for the registration of an FIR in respect of the same incident. A reference of this application was recorded in the Zimini of the case referred to in para 1 above. Since no action was taken by the police, the said Fazal Hussain approached the Superintendent of Police as a resuIt of which the Deputy Superintendent of Police orally directed the SHO, Police Station Nankana Sahib, to register the FIR of Fazal Din. Accordingly, FIR No.27 was registered at the instance of Fazal Din on 17.1.1987 against Muhammad Pervaiz, Ali Muhammad Abdul, Ghafoor, Nazir Ahmad and Manzoor. According to the version given in this FIR, Mujahid Aslam was passing in front of the house of Muhammad Pervaiz, accused. He was attacked and injured by the said five accused. Ali Muhammad, accused, was armed with a revolver, Muhammad Pervaiz, accused, was armed with a gun, and the other three accused were armed with dangs. This incident was witnessed by Fazal Din and others.
The motive for the occurrence was that Mujahid Aslam had illicit relations with Mst. Irshad Bibi, niece of Ali Muhammad, accused, and though he had been restrained from passing in front of the house of the accused, he had continued to do so, which had annoyed the accused.
4. Pervaiz Akhtar, accused, who is the complainant of FIR No.12 of 1987, challenges the registration of the FIR No.27 of 1987 registered at the instance of Fazal Din.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents and the State and have perused the police file of the case. Reading the contents of both the FIRs it is obvious that the counter version given by Fazal Din in FIR No.27 of 1987 is not by way of defence, but by way of separate grievance. It is not Fazal Din's case that the accused named in his case were aggressors; rather, his case is totally different from that given by Pervaiz Akhtar, present petitioner, (FIR No.12 of 1987). Prima facie, the counter version given by Fazal Din in his FIR No.27 of 1987 appears to be by way of grievance and not as a defence. In this view of the matter, being bound by the principle laid down by this Court in Akram Shah's case (PLD 1979 Lah. 320), Muhammad Aslam's case (PLD 1979 Lah. 907), Malik Muhammad Aslam's case (NLR 1981 Crl. 181), Mirza's case (NLR 1982 Criminal 22) and Abdul Ghani's case (NLR 1982 Criminal 296), I do not see any illegality in the registration of the second FIR at the instance of Fazal Din. Since the two versions contained in the two FIRs are different versions of two different occurrences and not two versions of the same occurrence and recoveries have to be made from the five accused, I would not like to interfere in this matter.
6. For, the foregoing reasons, there being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.