Petitioner has sought action of respondents in omitting the part of the Para. Of the written application and additions in the F.I.R., to be declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect being mala fide as well as against the express provisions of law and prayed that respondents be directed to lodge the fresh F.I.R. In accordance with law.
2. 2The necessary facts giving rise to this petition are that one person namely Sher Bat son of Ghulam Abbas was killed by some accused persons but the local police did not register the case.
Being not succeeded the petitioner approached this Court through W.P. 1782 of 1996 and sought direction to local police to register the case. On 31-1-1996 respondents 1 to 3 were directed to appear in this Court on 4-2-1996 along with para wise comments. On the said date the respondents appeared in this Court also submitted a copy of the F.I.R. No.7/96 dated 27-1-1996. As the occurrence was reported to the police station through the aforementioned F.I.R., therefore, the said writ petition was disposed of as borne fruit. Feeling aggrieved on the proceedings of the respondents, the petitioner has filed the petition in hand.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the F.I.R. No.7/96, dated 27-1-1996 has not been recorded in accordance with the provisions of the section 154, Cr.P.C. Which enjoins whether an oral report or a report in written form, the substance of the same has to be entered -in the book maintained at the police station for the purpose and has to be read over to the complainant and should be got signed by the complainant. He has further submitted that the original application on the basis of which the said F.I.R. Has been lodged consists of three pages, first and the second pages are the same while the third page has been removed and substituted with the present one, by the respondents which clearly indicates mala fide on their part. Hence he has requested that either the local police be directed to lodge fresh F.I.R. Or they be directed to *add the last para. Of the application in the already recorded F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the occurrence had been reported to the concerned police station vide F.I.R. No.7/96, dated 27-1-1996, therefore, second F.I.R. Could not be registered with regard to the same occurrence. As regards the substitution of the last page of the application for registration of the case, he has submitted that such matters cannot be reviewed in the writ jurisdiction.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by both the sides and perused the record carefully. In the instant petition, on 7-2-1996 respondents were directed to appear in person along with para wise comments. Respondents Nos. l and 3 are present. Report and para wise comments are also available on the file. Para. 3 is the relevant one, which is reproduced as under: "The contents of this para are incorrect. Case F.I.R. No.7/96, dated 27-1-1996 under section 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. Was registered on a written application moved by Badar Munir petitioner of this writ petition. No omission or addition was made in application moved by the petitioner and the case was registered iii accordance with the contents of the application verbatim. The names of Muhammad Ameer son of Fateh Khan and Mazhar Ahmad Qureshi son of Ameer Haider Qureshi sitting M.P.A. Had not been mentioned in the application on the basis of which the above said case was registered. The photocopies of application and formal F.I. R. Are attached herewith as Annexures ' A' and ' B' respectively."
The main grievance of the petitioner is that the application submitted by him to. The S.H.O. For registration of the case consists of three pages and according to him the police has mala fide removed the third page and substituted it with the present page. On the other hand, version of the respondents is that they have not at all substituted any page of written application for registration of the case and that they have recorded the said F.I.R. In verbatim from the original application of the complainant. Keeping in view the principles laid down in 1992 PLC 38; 1979 PCr.LJ 521; Kaura v.
The State 1994 SCM R 2142; Brig. (Retd.) Imtiaz Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan PLt) 1994 SC 281 and Malik Shaukat Ali Dogar v. Ghulam Qasim Khan Khakwani and others PLD 1971 SC 677 Shehnaz Begum case', I am afraid that the matters which can be determined only after recording evidence by statutory functionaries, cannot be raised in the writ jurisdiction. Moreover, since the occurrence has already been reported to the concerned police station vide F.I.R. No.7 of 1996, dated 27-1-1996, therefore, fresh/second F.I.R. Can also not be registered with regard to the same occurrence.
However, the petitioner if he so feels may tender his supplementary I statement during tha investigation.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that the writ petition is dismissedin limine.