1. BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.--- The High Court has accepted a writ petition filed by Najeeb Ali Khan respondent No,1 and has directed S.H.O. Police Station City Muzaffarabad to register a case against 22 persons who are appellants and pro forma-respondents before this Court. Leave was granted in the case on the ground that the report given by respondent No,1 had been investigated and it was found that it was false and merely a device to damage the murder case in which he is one of the accused persons. It was further contended that the writ petition was belated and entailed dismissal.
2. ' Brief summary of averments made in the 4rit petition is that on 10th of June an altercation took place between Nisar Ahmad and Ishfaque inMuzaffarabad On the same day another altercation took place between Karim Nawaz and Ejaz Ahmad. The elders of, village Khilla intervened and arranged a meeting to resolve the matter amicably to be held on 11th June, at 4-30 p.m. At Khilla. At 4-30 p.m. 23 persons, all belonging to the group of Muhammad Rehman, armed with knives, sticks, guns reached the back of the house of Najeeb Ali with the intention to attack Najeeb Ali and his relatives. Accordingly they launched attack upon them with the intention to kill Najeeb Ali and his companions. Muhammad Altaf given a blow with an iron clip on the face of Najeeb Ali and he was badly injured. Iftikhar Ahmad inflicted injury to Arif Hussain with a knife on his left side of the chest whereupon he fell down and became unconscious. He is admitted in hospital and it is not certain whether he would survive. Lal Khan hurled stone on Muhammad Nawaz causing serious injury as a result of which he lost his consciousness. Muhammad Azam inflicted injury to Karim Nawaz with knife on his chest. Other persons hurled stones and caused stick injuries. They also resorted to firing so that nobody could come to their rescue. Medical reports of the persons injured from Najeeb Ali's group were filed with the petition. Lal Khan tried to attack .Asif Hussain, a son of Najeeb Ali, but he missed the attack upon Asif Hussain and the same was inflicted on one Muhammad Rehman who died in the hospital. A written report was lodged with S.H.O., Police Station City Muzaffarabad on the same day. He kept the application in record but did not register a case. The S.H.O. And other authorities were approached by Najeeb Ali and his relatives but no action had been taken by the S.H.O. One of the injured persons Muhammad Nawaz subsequently approached the S.S.P. And D.I.- G. Photo copies of the application dated 23rd June, 1995 and 27th June, 1995 were also attached with the petition. Since no other adequate remedy was available the writ petition was filed on 28th July.
3. ' It may be mentioned that when the writ petition was filed Najeeb Ali had been arrested as one of the accused persons in a murder case registered with the police arising out of the same occurrence for causing the death of deceased Muhammad Rehman. The police registered the case at 6-25 p.m. On the same day' on a report lodged by Shah Zaman. It was stated in the F.I.R.
4. That when proceedings started in the Jirga Najeeb Ali hurled abuses. Deceased Muhammad Rehman begged of him to prove the guilt before hurling abuses but Najeeb Ali started altercation.
5. His son Abid Hussain brought out a knife and stabbed Muhammad Rehman on his chest. Najeeb Ali loudly cried that everybody should be done to death. Thereupon his sons Mushtaq, Ashiq, Arif and Asif and 14 other persons named in the report launched attack on the other party. They used fire- arm, stones etc. Resulting in injuries to different persons apart from the death of Muhammad Rehman.
6. ' In the writ petition filed by Najeeb Ali there were 26 respondents, three of them being Police Officers and the rest of them are those who were nominated as accused persons. The High Court has directed that a case may be registered against them. They are now appellants in this Court.
7. The main objections raised on behalf of the appellants are as follows:--
(i) It is not necessary for the police to register a case on every information particularly when a case has already been registered in respect of the same occurrence.
(ii) The report of Najeeb Ali on the basis of which a case was sought to be registered has been investigated by the police and has been found to be false, with the result that registration of the case would be futile;
(iii) The writ petition suffered from laches inasmuch as it was filed 40 days after the occurrence and was thus hit by the rule laid down by this Court in a judgment reported as Mahboob Khan v.
8. Fazal Ellahi 1995 PCr.LJ 1778.
9. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. A number of reported cases have been referred by them on different aspects of the case. In our view the basic point which needs to be resolved in this case is whether it is mandatory for the police to register a case whenever an information is given to it or whether police has the option to refuse registration of a case in certain situations particularly in the situation when a case already stands registered about the same occurrence. The relevant law, in so far as it relates to cognizable offences, is laid down in section 154, Cr.P.C. While section 155 deals with non-cognizable offences. Section 154 is to the following effect:-- "154. Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer in charge of police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the (Provincial Government) may prescribe in this behalf."
10. ' The provision of law reproduced above has been subject of interpretation in different cases and there seems to be difference of opinion as to whether this provision binds the police to register a case with no option being available for its refusal.
11. ' A Full Bench of the Lahore High Court in case reported as Muhammad Anwar, Bar-at-Law v. S.H.O., Civil Lines PLD 1972 Lah. 493 held that if an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is furnished to the police it falls under section 154 of Cr.P.C. The Police Officer is under a statutory obligation to enter it in the prescribed register. It was further held that a Police Officer is bound to receive a complaint when it is preferred to him or where the commission of an offence is reported to him orally he is bound to take down the complaint. The learned Judges observed that: "If he does not incorporate in the register a complaint so made he fails to perform a statutory duty as a public servant and, therefore, renders himself to be dealt with by the superior Officers for neglect of duty. Thus, it does not depend on the sweet will of Police Officer who may or may not record it.
12. ' This view was reiterated in Sawant v. S.H.Q. Saddar, Kasur PLD 1975 Lah. 733 by laying down that section 154 is imperative and a Police Officer cannot refuse to register a case on the ground that a case already stands registered and the counter-version being put forward in the second report is false.
13. ' In Ch. Shah Muhammad v. S.H.O., Rahimyar Khan 1977 PCr.LJ 2 a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed a writ petition filed to seek a direction for registration of a case on the ground that the police did not record the F.I.R. On the ground that there was no reasonable ground for doing so. In reaching this conclusion the learned Judge relied on Rules 24(1) and 24(4) of the Punjab Police Rules. Intra-Court appeal was filed. A Division Bench of the Lahore High Court consisting of Mushtaq Hussain and Gul Muhammad, JJ. Set aside portion of the judgment of the Single Judge and followed Muhammad Anwar's case wherein it had been held that a Police Officer is bound to register a case if it spells out commission of cognizable offence. It was however, held that it is not necessary that a direction may be given in each and every case where there is an omission to perform a statutory duty.
14. ' In Tassadaq Hussain v. Inspector/S.H.O., Race Course 1983 CLC 197, this view was followed. This view was reiterated by the Lahore High Court in Ch. Attaullah v. Ch. Mumtaz Ahmad Kahloon 1973 PCr.LJ 69. In this judgment it was held that even the police has made investigation in the case with reference to a particular incident another report about same incident is not barred on different allegation.
15. ' A Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court in Ibrahim v. S.H.O., Mansehra PLD 1983 Pesh. 229 took the same view, namely, that a Police Officer was duty bound to register a case when an information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence was conveyed to him.
16. ' The view of the Karachi High Court is the same as that of the Lahore High Court. It was held in Muhammad Ilyas v. Senior Superintendent of Police 1989 PCr.LJ 1129 that section 154, Cr.P.C. Is mandatory in nature and it makes compulsory for the Police Officer to record every information furnished to him.
17. ' The judgment in Muhammad Ilyas's case was followed by a Division Bench in Wazir Ahmad v.
18. S.H.O. Police Station Mehboob Kahoro 1990 PCr.LJ 2006. The learned Judges observed as follows:-- "We had the advantage of full arguments on this subject at this preliminary stage, and on a careful review of the case-law on the point we are clearly of the view that it is almost well-settled that a Police Officer cannot refuse to register a case where a cognizable offence is made out. He cannot refuse to register a case even if he considers the version as false."
19. ' The learned counsel for the respondents has referred us to a case Syed Muhammad Shah v. State 1993 SCMR 550 which was an appeal against conviction but an occasion arose to examine section 154 of the Cr.P.C. And Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that under section 154, Cr.P.C. It is mandatorily bounden duty of the Police Officer to register first information report of a cognizable offence.
20. ' There are some reported cases in which it has been held that if one First Information Report has been recorded, another report about the same incident cannot be recorded. In Kaura v. State 1983 SCMR 436 it was held that once a case has been registered the registration of a fresh report notwithstanding the divergent version contained therein was not called for inasmuch as bail had already set rolling and police was not only competent but also duty bound to unearth the true facts and trace the real culprit. The facts of the case were that Haji Jewan was murdered. One Essa lodged a report with the police and mentioned Ghulam Muhammad as the solitary accused. About two weeks later a son of the deceased sent an application to the Investigating Officer in which he stated that his father Haji Jewan was not murdered by Ghulam Muhammad but by Kaura. The local police declined to register a second report whereupon a writ petition was filed to seek a direction addressed to the police for registration of the fresh case. The petition was accepted and the High Court issued a direction to the police to register a fresh case. On appeal the Supreme Court took the view, as mentioned above, that registration of a fresh report was not called for.
21. ' It was held in Mushtaq Ahmad v. S.H.O., Police Station Munawan 1984 PCr.LJ 1454 that no direction could be issued for registration of .a case based on counter-version of the other side when a F.I.R.
22. Had already been registered.
23. ' There is yet another view. In Muhammad Aslam v. Station House Officer, Police Station Saddar, Sargodha PLD 1981 Lah. 138 a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court held that law does not contemplate lodging of another F.I.R. In respect of the same occurrence but the Court in a proper situation where the counter-allegations leveled are distinct and require investigation, may in its discretion direct the recording of a counter-F.I.R. In reaching the conclusion the learned Judge referred to three other judgments, namely, Ch. Attaullah v. Ch. Mumtaz Ahmad Kahloon 1973 PCr.LJ 69, Sawant v. S.H.O., Police Station Saddar, Kasur PLD 1975 Lah. 733 and Akram Ali Shah v. Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Kasur PLD 1979 Lah. 320 which lay down the rule that a fresh F.I.R. Can be registered only if any party has a counter-version.
24. ' In Allah Ditta v. The SILO., Police Station Basirpur PLD 1987 Lah. 300 it was laid down by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court that no hard and fast rule could be laid down as to when a second F.I.R. Could or should be recorded and that the matter has to be seen in the totality of the circumstances of the allegations.
25. ' After giving our anxious consideration to the matter we have reached the conclusion that section 154, Cr.P.C. Reproduced above, is mandatory provision and whenever an information disclosing a prima facie commission of a cognizable offence is made the concerned Police Officer is bound to enter it in the prescribed book and then proceed in accordance with law. It may be noted that the phrase "First Information Report" is not mentioned in section 154. In fact it is specifically stated in the section that "every information" has to be entered in the relevant book. Therefore, we are unable to subscribe to the view that the police is only bound to register the "First Information" and a subsequent report may be investigated without registration. The words "every information" indicate that subsequent report must also be registered. Another reason which supports this view is that the power to investigate a non-cognizable case is vested by law in the Police Officer but cancellation of a case can only be ordered by a Magistrate. If section 154 is not construed as a mandatory provision then powers of a Magistrate whether to cancel a case or not would become meaningless. We, therefore, hold that whenever a person lodges information thei police is bound to record it notwithstanding the fact that a case has already been registered. It follows that even if a person wants to give a counter-version of the case a case can be registered provided the information prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. It also follows that if one set of accused has already been nominated in an F.I.R. Another report alleging that another set of accused persons was responsible for the offence can also be registered.
26. ' However, the undisputed proposition of law is that power to issue a writ is discretionary in nature and relief can be refused if it may amount to injustice or is inequitable. The High Court has the power to refuse relief for some other reasons like laches, acquiescence etc. It is well-settled that even in cases where illegality is proved the High Court can refuse to issue a writ on the one ground mentioned above or on the ground that the illegal order impugned before the High Court has corrected an illegal order. In Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner PLD 1973 SC 236 an order passed without jurisdiction was not quashed when the Supreme Court of Pakistan found that the order without jurisdiction had set aside an illegal order. Therefore, the question whether writ will be issued and whether it will be refused depends on facts of each case. Similarly a writ petition entails dismissal if another adequate remedy is available to a petitioner. A writ petition filed for seeking a direction to the police for registration of a case is no exception to this rule. Many cases have been brought to our notice in which, after accepting the position that the police was bound to register a case, relief was refused for various grounds. The general view is that it is not possible to lay down any hard and fast rule on this point; only some principles can be laid down. In this context a large number of reported cases have been referred to us by the learned counsel for the parties. We have ourselves noticed some other cases in which the proposition under discussion came under adjudication.
27. ' In Muhammad Khan v. Khizar Hayat PLD 1976 Lah. 1348 a writ petition was filed in the High Court seeking a direction to a Sub-Inspector to register a case against his own self in the police post where he was posted himself. Karam Elahi Chohan, J. (as he then was) reached the conclusion that adequate remedy by way of complaint to the Magistrate was available to the petitioner. This finding was based on the observation that evidence in the form of original document forming basis of the version being put forward by the petitioner was already in possession of the petitioner and the case did not need investigation by police.
28. ' ' In Mst. Bashiran Bibi v. S.H.O., Shorkot PLD 1978 Lah. 1323 M. Afzal Zullah, J. (as he then was) declined to issue a writ for registration of a case when it was submitted before the High Court that S.H.O. Was inimical to the writ petitioner. The learned Judge observed that if it was so the S.H.O. Was likely to spoil the case of the petitioner "Zimnis" and thus a complaint directly before the Magistrate was more effective and efficacious.
29. ' In Muhammad Ilyas v. Martial Law Administrator PLD 1980 Lah. 165 it was found that complainant had already been medically examined and medical report was with him and no recovery was required to be made. In these circumstances it was held that remedy by way of private complaint was adequate and writ petition was declined.
30. ' In Muhammad Azim v. The S.H.O., Police Station Abbas Nagar 1988 PCLU 41 the facts of the case were that the petitioner before the High Court and some others had been challenged in the Court and date had been fixed for recording of evidence. Counter-version given by the petitioner had already been investigated by the police. A learned Judge expressed the view that in these circumstances the second F.I.R. Shall not serve any useful purpose and that private complaint was an efficacious remedy for the petitioner.
31. ' The facts in Mst. Zubaida v. Muhammad Sarwar 1994 PCr.LJ 1330 were that parties were closely related to each other. A report was lodged to the police that the' ft of ornaments and cash had been committed. It was alleged that when a report was made to the police, the police officials demanded a bribe of Rs,10,000. A learned Judge of the High Court observed that when the police was not taking any action alternate remedy by way of private complaint was available. Writ was not issued but the competent Court was ordered to decide the complainant's case expeditiously, if filed.
32. ' In Zafar Iqbal v. Inspector-General of Police 1994 MLD 374 a petition was filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to respondent S.H.O. It was submitted that oral and written requests for registration of a case had not brought any result. It was further alleged that the local police is in league with the accused persons. Deputy Inspector-General of Police submitted in his written report before the High Court that the report given by the petitioner had been found to be false. It was further submitted that his investigation has been carried out under Rule 24.2 of the Police Rules, 1934. The writ petition was dismissed by observing that the matter had been inquired into by the local police and they had reached the conclusion that the allegations had been false. It was, therefore, observed that petitioner could hardly expect favorable decision from the police. The case was not considered to be fit one for issuing a direction prayed for.
33. ' In Ghulam Qadir v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 1239 a writ petition seeking a direction for registration of a case was dismissed on the ground that one report had already been registered and the petitioner could put forward his version during the course of investigation.
34. ' As already noted in the present case one of the contentions vehemently put forth by the appellants is that since the report lodged by Najeeb Ali had been duly investigated by the police as a counter-version the registration of another case should have been declined by the High Court on that ground alone. In cases of Bashiran Bibi, Muhammad Azim and Zafar Iqbal, noted above, it was held that if counter-version has already been investigated by the police the registration of second report will not serve useful purpose and that remedy by way of private complaint would be an adequate remedy in these circumstances. After giving our anxious consideration we are in agreement with this view.
35. Therefore, we would like to lay down the rule that where counter-version has been investigated and the police has already expressed its opinion by rejecting it, registration of a second report will be futile and remedy by way of private complaint would be treated as adequate remedy available to the petitioner. It follows that in such situation a writ petition seeking registration of second report would be rejected.
36. ' In the present case the Deputy Inspector-General of Police. Senior Superintendent of Police and S.H.O. Have stated in their written statement that Najeeb Ali filed an application for registration of a case. It was duly investigated but it was found to be false as the facts of the case proved that Najeeb Ali and his party were the aggressors. The police has meanwhile filed the challah in the case during the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court. Ten persons out of the accused persons have been let off under section 169, Cr.P.C. In the report it has been specifically mentioned that Najeeb All had a minor injury and that accused persons Karim Nawaz and Arif Hussain were under treatment in the hospital. In the replication filed in the Court by Najeeb Ali it ,is stated in paragraph 9 that the written report filed by him with police forms part of the record. We have noticed that the injury statements and medico-legal reports of the injured accused persons also form part of the challan. It is thus, clear that the police did not suppress the injuries suffered by the accused persons. It is also clear that police did not brush aside their version but it was taken due note of and was properly investigated. The police has reached the conclusion that Najeeb Ali's group was the aggressor and has rejected the version put forth by Najeeb Ali.
37. ' In these circumstances the rule stated above fully applies and the direction for registration of second case has to be recalled. In this view of the 6 matter it is not necessary to see whether Najeeb Ali's writ petition suffered from laches or not.
38. ' As an upshot of the foregoing discussion we accept the appeal and after setting aside the judgment under appeal order the dismissal of the writ petition. There will be however no order as to costs.