' BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.--- In exercise of writ jurisdiction the High Court has issued a direction to S.H.O. Police Station, Kotli to register a case on the basis of a report submitted to him by respondent Fazal Elahi. He has been further directed to proceed in accordance with law after the registration of the case. The direction has been issued in light of section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Mahboob Khan and eleven others, the persons against whom the S.H.O. Has to proceed, have filed this appeal by leave of the Court.
2. In the writ petition filed by Fazal Elahi it was stated by him that S.H.O. Kotli had registered a murder case under sections 5 and 15 of Islamic Penal Laws Act read with sections 341, 147, 148 and 149 of the Penal Code on 8th of March, 1992 against him, (Fazal Elahi) Muhammad Akram, Muhammad Naib, Muhammad Ajaib, Muhammad Tasab and Muhammad Afsar. The case was registered on 8th of March, 1992 and challan was filed in the Court on 22nd of March, 1992 against all the aforesaid persons. It was submitted that F.I.R. Lodged by Fazal Ellahi contained incorrect version and that members of the opposite party, arrayed as respondents in the writ petition, were in fact the aggressors. They entered upon the land owned and possessed by the writ petitioner and caused injuries on the person of different persons including head injuries on the person of Muhammad Akram. It was stated that two injuries had been declared to be grievous by the Medical Officer. On the same day i,e, 8th of March, a written report was filed by Fazal Elahi and Muhammad Akram at Police Chowki, Nar, but case was not registered and they were told by the police that they had registered a "Zimni Report'. And a regular case will be registered in due course of time. The High Court has accepted the writ petition by holding that a Police Officer is bound to register a case on the information laid before him. In doing so the learned Judge in the High Court has relied on M. Anwar, Barrister-At-Law v. The Station House Officer, Civil Lines, Police Station, Lahore PLD 1972 Lah. 493 and The S.H.O. Police Station Mitha Tiwana, District Sargodha 1982 PCr.LJ 125.
3. In support of the appeal Mr. Muhammad Nisar Mirza, the learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that challan of the case was filed on 22nd of March, 1992 while the writ petition was filed on 20th of April, 1992. He submitted that the trial of murder case against Fazal Ellahi and other accused persons has almost been completed and only the statement of the Police Officer who supervised the investigation in the case is left to be recorded. He, therefore, contended that issuance of direction for registration of another case at the instance of the accused persons would jeopardize the murder case already nearing completion. He submitted that legally there could be only one report in respect of the same incident. Mr. Muhammad Nisar Mirza submitted that cases relied upon by the learned Judge in the High Court are those cases in which a report had not been previously recorded and it was held that police was bound to register a case under section 154 of Cr.P.C. He submitted that cases in which a report has already been registered fall under different category about which it has been held by the superior Courts in Pakistan that no second report was to be registered. He relied on Kaura v. The State 1983 SCMR 436, Kaura v. The State 1979 PCr.LJ 521, Riaz Ahmad v. The Inspector of Police/Station House Officer, Police Station Baseerpur, District Okara 1991 PCr.LJ 6 and Mushtaq Ahmad v. The S.H.O. Police Station, Munawan 1984 PCr.LJ 1454. He particularly highlighted the following view of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Kaura's case:-- "It appears to us that once the case was registered vide F.I.R. 23, dated 7-2-1976 in respect of the murder of Haji Jewan the registration of a fresh report notwithstanding the divergent version contained therein was not called for inasmuch as the bail had already been set rolling and the police was not only competent but also duty bound to unearth the true facts and trace the real culprits. The impugned order seems to be the result of some confusion or accidental slip."
4. The learned counsel for the respondents, Ch. Muhammad Sharif Tariq, contended that the combined effect of section 154 of the Cr:P.C. And Rule 24 of the Police Rules is that every information must be recorded regardless of the fact whether a report has already been registered or not. He submitted that the phraseology used by the legislature was that "every information shall be reduced to writing". He relied on Muhammad Latif v. S.H.O., Police Station, Saddar, Dunyapur 1993 PCr.LJ 1992, Allah Ditta v. The S.H.O., Police Station Basirpur, District Okara PLD 1987 Lah. 300, Tassadaque Hussain v. Hameeduddin Haider NLR 1983 Cri. 55, Haji Sardar Bahadur Khan v. Zia Masoom, D.I.-G. Police, Hazara Range, Abbottabad 1992 PCr.LJ 1989, Muhammad Latif v. S.H.O. And others. 1993 PCr.LJ 1992 and Halim Sarwar v. S.H.O. Police, Head Marala 1984 PCr.LJ 2993.
5. The facts of the case show that the occurrence took place on 8th of March, 1992 and, as stated in the writ petition, challan in the case was filed on 22nd of March, 1992. Fazal Ellahi respondent was one of the persons against whom challan was presented, but he filed the writ petition on 20th of April, 1992. On the very face of it the writ petition suffered from laches and in our view should have been dismissed on that ground. It is stated in the writ petition that the police had not registered a case at the instance of Fazal Elahi although he filed a written report. In these circumstances Fazal Ellahi should have filed the writ without any delay. The question of laches has to be seen in light of facts of each case. In criminal matters lodging of F.I.R. Has to be done at the earliest occasion and if there is any delay it should be explained. On the same anology, filing of a writ seeking direction for registration of a case must be expeditious. Fazal Ellahi himself states that the police did not register a case at his instance. Since he was aware of this fact he should have at once, if so advised, filed the writ petition but he did not do so. On 22nd of March a challan was presented in the Court in which counter-version put forward by Fazal Ellahi was not given any credence but he still did not promptly file a writ. Although upon completion of investigation and filing of challan a material change had taken place yet the respondent slept over the matter for twenty-eight more days. For it, there is no explanation. In these circumstances reopening of investigation at the instance of a person who is accused in the case would cause prejudice to the murder case pending in the Court. Thus, the petition was hit by the doctrine of laches. It follows that the discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under section 44 of the Interim Constitution Act should not have been exercised in the present case.
6. In this view of the matter the question whether police is bound by law to register a fresh counter- report when a report has already been lodged becomes academic in this case. It is, therefore, left open.
For these reasons we accept the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court.