KHAN RIAZ-UD-DIN AHMAD, J.-This is an application for impleading Muhammad Siddique, the applicant, as respondent in the main writ petition as he is complainant in the case. This application is allowed and the applicant is impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the writ petition. The office shall add the name of the applicant as respondent No. 2 in the array of the respondents in the main writ petition. This C.M. Stands disposed of.
Let the main petition be heard.
Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner wants this Court to issue a direction to the SHO, P.S. Kunjah, district Gujrat, to register the second FIR as a counter- version of the occurrence already reported by one Muhammad Siddique, respondent No. 2, the complainant, vide case FIR No. 188/92 under sections 324 and 337-A of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance read with section 34 P.P.C, against the petitioner and three others at P.S. Kunjah.
2. It was submitted that the petitioner and four others were injured in the said occurrence by the complainant party of the above-said case but their injuries were intentionally suppressed in the said FIR and the Police in connivance with the complainant party has neither recorded their defence version nor had registered the case at their instance, although the police was bound to do so as per the provisions of section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. The comments called for from the respondent-SHO, who is also present in person along with, the record, have been received. Muhammad Siddique, the complainant of the above-said case, who stands impleaded as a party to this writ petition, has also been given an opportunity of hearing through his learned counsel.
4. The parawise comments disclose that Mian Khan, the petitioner, and others were duly associated with the investigation of the case and their claim of being victim of the assault by the complainant party was also investigated. It is further disclosed therein that during the investigation as many as 40 local residents appeared and deposed about the alleged assault of the petitioner on the complainant party; that the claim of the writ-petitioner that they had retaliated to defend themselves was found unsubstantial and untrue. In consequences of the aforesaid investigation, the challan was submitted to court against the petitioner and others and the case was stated to be under trial.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner laid emphasis on the point that it was the bounden duty of respondent No. 1 to register their case if a cognizable offence was made out. He asserts that as five persons of his party had received the injuries and. They were medically examined, so there was no hitch in the registration of the second FIR, relating to their injuries. Reliance was placed upon Ghulam Hussain vs. Sirajul Haque and others (NLR 1987 Criminal 359) and Allah Dittan and 3 others vs. SHO, Police Station Basirpur, District Okara and 3 others (PU 1987 Cr.C. (Lahore, 322).
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 vehemently argued that the case already stands registered at the instance of the complainant, which was duly investigated by the concerned police, keeping in view the defence version. He submits that on the basis of the statements made by the respectables of the locality and the eye-witnesses the Investigating Agency liad reached the conclusion that the claim of the writ-petitioner regarding the aggression of the complainant party was found false. So the challan against the petitioner-party has already been submitted before the court. According to him, there is no need for the registration of the second FIR in the circumstances of the case. To substantiate his plea, he has placed reliance on Mushtaq Ahmad vs. The S.H.O., Police Station, Munawan (1984 P.Cr.L.J. 1454) and Ghulam Siddique vs. S.H.O. Saddar, Dera Ghazi Khan and 8 others (PLD 1979 Lahore 263). He further submits that the petitioner has also an alternate remedy to file a complaint before the court of competent jurisdiction.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and have perused the parawise comments submitted by respondent No. 1, the S.H.O.
8. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the counter-version of the petitioner should form the basis for an independent second FIR. His grievance that the petitioner has not been associated with the investigation and has not been given opportunity to give his defence-version before the Investigating Agency also stands belied by the report submitted by the respondent-SHO,' according to which an opportunity was given to the petitioner to produce his defence and it was after recording the version given by the petitioner that the Investigating Agency had reached the conclusion that the claim of the petitioner, being aggressed one, was found substantially false and untrue. Once the Investigating Agency has reached a conclusion, it would be an exercise in futility to issue direction to them for the registration of the second FIR. Otherwise even without registration of the second FIR, the police could challan the other party in the same FIR if it had found commission of a cognizable offence.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the above-said facts and circumstances and have gone through the authorities cited by the both the parties. By agreeing with the observations made in Mushtaq Ahmad's case supra (1984 P.Cr.L.J. 14541 and the recent view incorporated in Riaz Ahmad vs. The Inspector of Police/Station House Officer, Police Station Baseerpur, District Okara and 4 others (1991 P.Cr.L.J. 61.1 am of the view that the plea of the petitioner was duly investigated by the police vide FIR No. 188/92 and was found false and without any substance. In that view of the matter, the refusal of the police would not be treated as mala fide.
10. In the above circumstances, it would not be in the interest of justice to refer the matter again to the Investigating Agency for the registration of a case in which it has already reached a positive conclusion and the challan has also been submitted to the Court. Moreover, the petitioner has got an alternate remedy as well by filing a complaint before the court of competent jurisdiction, if so advised, and the same in such circumstances would be a more efficacious remedy.
In view of the foregoing reasons, this petition stands dismissed.