' Muhammad Latif has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court by filing this petition for the issuance of a direction to respondent No,1/S.H.O. Police Station Saddar, Dunyapur to register the case against respondents Nos.2 to 14 for the murder of one Altaf Hussain and also for committing murderous assault on the person of the petitioner's party as a result of which four persons sustained serious and grievous injuries.
2. The case of the petitioner's side in brief, is; that Pervaiz Akhtar son of the petitioner, who is a student, was playing football match in the ground of his school. During the game a quarrel took place between the said Pervaiz Akhtar and one Shafique son of Taj Din but they were separated by the other players and Shafique left the place after threatening the son of the petitioner of dire consequences.
' Pervaiz Akhtar son of the petitioner also went to the house of his grandfather to tell about this incident and the petitioner was, therefore, called by his father-in-law in this connection. It is also stated that when the petitioner alongwith his brother-in-law was going to the house of his father- in-law on a tractor and was at a distance of 100 yards respondents Nos.2 to 114 came there being armed with deadly weapons and raised a Lalkara that Pervaiz Akhtar be handed over to them otherwise he will be murdered by them. Muhammad Yaqoob drove the Tractor in a fast speed and entered into his house. Respondents Nos.2 to 14 gathered in front of the house of his brother-in-law and continued raising Lalkara and also fired in the air. Muhammad Sharif, the brother-in-law of the petitioner then came outside of his house to enquire the matter from the respondents and requested them to keep peace but within no time Shafique respondent gave a dagger blow to Muhammad Sharif. On hue and cry, Muhammad Nasir, Abdul Ghaffar and Muhammad Yaqoob sons of Muhammad Sharif were attracted to the spot and the respondents ran away from the house and they gathered in Pepal More Chowk.
' It is further stated that Muhammad Sharif with his sons was proceeding to hospital for treatment when the respondents again attacked upon him and his sons. The respondents Nos.1 to 7 fired straightaway on Nasir and caused injuries on his face and chest. Younas respondent fired with his carbine on Nasir which hit on his face, chest and arm. Respondent Zulfiqar gave a dagger below on the abdomen of Muhammad Sharif who was injured. Siraj Din gave a blow of hatchet on the left arm from its butt side. Muhammad Arshad respondent gave three hatchet blows to Abdul Ghaffar on his forehead, face and back of the chest. Altaf who was cutting fodder in his field also was attracted upon hue and cry and on fire reports and came armed with his licensed 222 rifle to save his brothers and father etc. Respondent Hamid fired at once to Altaf which hit on his forehead. Altaf Hussain in the exercise of right of his private defence fired upon Muhammad Shafique who fell down as a result thereof. As soon as Shafique fell down, Muhammad Siddique fired on Altaf which hit him on the left side of his chest. Muhammad Ahmed respondent fired on the right side of the chest of Altaf. Umar Din respondent then fired which hit on the left arm of Altaf. Ashraf alias Baitia also fired with his klashnikov which hit Altaf to his right arm and one Mukhtar also sustained injuries at the spot as a result whereof Altaf and Mukhtar also died.
3. On the other hand Muhammad Ahmed respondent No,7 lodged an F.I.R. No,130/93 at Police Station Dunaypur on 24-4-1993 under section 302/ 324/148/149, P.P.C. For the murders of Muhammad Shafiq and Altaf Hussain and also for murderous assault upon Abdul Hameed, Younas, Siraj and Zulfiqar who received serious injuries caused to them by fire-arm as well as by sharp- edged weapon. According to the F.I.R. a dispute arose between Muhammad Shafiq deceased of the respondents' side and Altaf Hussain deceased of the petitioner's side and there was an exchange of abuses and slaps between them which was taken ill by the accused party and thereafter Altaf Hussain (deceased), Abdul Ghaffar and their brother-in-law Muhammad Lateef again stopped the way of Muhammad Shafiq deceased while he was coming to his house, but again the matter was patched up.
' On the same day at 6 p.m. Altaf Hussain deceased armed with rifle 222 bore, Naseer with mauser, Yaqoob with 7 mm, Ilyas and Abdul Ghaffar both armed with spear, Muhammad Sharif and Pervaiz armed with hatchets, Latif armed with carbine and Muhammad Akram armed with .32 bore revolver came at the spot and Altaf Hussain raised a Lalkara that Shafiq would be taught a lesson for slapping him. The alarm attracted Muhammad Younas, Rashid, Siraj and Sakhi Muhammad who also came out of their houses. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. That all the accused named in the F.I.R. Attacked upon Shafiq and the P.Ws. As a result of which Shafiq and Mukhtar died and four persons received injuries. Some of the accused also received injuries, it was alleged that those were caused to them in exercise of the right of private defence.
4. The petitioner approached the police including the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector-General of Police, through applications for the registration of the case against the respondents, for the murder of Altaf Hussain and for causing injuries to others but it is stated that the police did not register the case on the ground that it was the petitioner's side which was the aggressor as they came all the way having formed themselves into an unlawful assembly being armed with deadly weapons and committed the murder of two persons and also caused injuries so the respondents were the aggressed. They caused injuries to Altaf Hussain and others in exercise of right of private defence.
5. Mr. Pervaiz Aftab, Advocate the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was actually the respondents who committed the aggression and when the petitioner had approached the police it was obligatory upon it to register the case because the second F.I.R. Is not a bar if a new case is made out or allegations of a cognizable case are levelled and then the aggrieved party is entitled to have his case registered under section 154, Cr.P.C. And investigated. It was argued that the respondents murdered the petitioner's brother-in-law but the law enforcing agencies went of the rampage on the ostentation of the figment of imagination and this ruthless, inhuman, illegal attitude of the custodian of law lowered the image of law enforcing agencies and shattered the confidence of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, also placed reliance upon judgements reported as Allah Ditta and 3 others v. The S.H.O., Police Station Bashirpur, District Okara and 3 others PLD 1987 Lah. 300, Kaura v. The State and others 1983 SCMR 436 and M. Anwar, Barrister-at-Law v. The Station House Officer, Civil Lines, Police Station, Lahore and another PLD 1972 Lah.
493.
6. Sahibzada Farooq Ali Khan, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that in this case F.I.R. No,130/93 was lodged at the instance of Muhammad Ahmed which was registered and all the informations supplied to the police by the petitioner's side were looked into and it was found that they were actually the aggressors so no second F.I.R. Need to be recorded. He further argued that actually it was the petitioner's side who committed aggression and not the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance upon judgments reported as Riaz Ahmed v. I.-G. Police etc. 1991 P Cr. L J 6, State v. Mr. Muhammad Pervaiz Masood, Additional Chief Secretary 1991 P Cr. L J 110, All Gohar v. S.H.O. Jauharabad 1989 P Cr. L J 1825 and Ghulam Siddiq etc. NLR 1989 Criminal 315.
7. I have given my earnest consideration to the arguments advanced by both the sides and have also gone through the case-law. I find that the main grievance of the petitioner is that the investigation in this case was not impartially carried out and there was no basis to declare the petitioner's side as the aggressor. After having gone through the material placed on the record and two different versions put forth by the parties, I have reached the conclusion that it would have been more appropriate if both the versions had been before the police and the investigation bad been carried out in respect of them after affording full opportunities to both the parties to lead their respective evidence. Although the police has reached the conclusion that it was the petitioner's side which came and opened the attack but I fail to understand as to how without recording the report of the petitioner, the police had come to the finding that the petitioner side was aggressor and Altaf Hussain died when he was fired upon by Abdul Hameed in exercise of the right of private defence.
8. It is now a settled proposition of law that informations can be laid one after the other, to be recorded as F.I.Rs, if these disclose separate cognizable offences, the second or later not being the mere amplification of the first but the disclosure of other criminal activities. Although recording of a second F.I.R. Or a direction to that effect depends upon the circumstances of each case but counter-cases are often recorded and tried. No hard and fast rules or principles can be laid as to when a second F.I.R. Can or should be recorded. The matter has to be seen in the context of the totality of the circumstances and the allegations. After the registration of the first F.I.R. If a new case is made out or allegations of a cognizable case are levelled showing a genuine grievance, then the aggrieved party is entitled to have his case registered and investigated.
9. In this case it was submitted that the petitioner's side received 32 injuries, mostly the fire-arms and also sharp-edged and blunt weapons whereas the respondents' side received only 23 injuries.
Without making any comments at this stage lest it may prejudice the case of either party when one person of the petitioner's side has also been done to death and four persons have received fire-arm and other injuries then it was the duty of the police to C register this case as well. In my view, if the party has a grievance or counter-version of the occurrence then notwithstanding recording of F.I.R. From the other side the police should have registered the case to reach a correct conclusion at the instance of the petitioner.
10. Resultantly, I allow this petition and direct the S.H.O., Police Saddar Dunyapur (respondent No,1) to also register the case at the instance of the petitioner and then proceed in accordance with law and certainly on merits.