On the morning of 25-6-1996 an occurrence took place within the area of Nangal Shahu (Police Station Baddomalhi) Tehsil and District Narowal wherein Shaukat A.I uncle of Muhammad Ilyas lost the life while Arshad son of Ghulam Hussain was injured. About the occurrence F I.R. No.109 dated 25-6-1996 stands registered under section 302/324/353/ 148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Baddomalhi, District Narowal at the instance of Abdul Majid, Sub-Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station Baddomalhi. According to the said S.H.O. He received the information that some persons were present at the place of occurrence while armed with lethal weapons to dispossess the other party from the landed property where he reached alongwith police party where other Police Officers also arrived. During the occurrence the police party was allegedly attacked when Shaukat A.I lost his life and Arshad was injured.
2. However, the version of Muhammad Ilyas petitioner is that they were in possession of the property and that to dispossess them the police party arrived alongwith others when Ehsan Ullah fired with his rifle which hit Shaukat A.I on the right side of his chest who expired there and then and that Muhammad Arif fired at Muhammad Arshad with rifle which hit his left thigh who fell there, It is alleged that there was indiscriminate firing. According to Muhammad Ilyas petitioner the dead body of Shaukat A.I and Muhammad Arshad in injured condition were removed by the police. The version of Muhammad Ilyas is that the police illegally helped the adverse party who desired to grab the property who had arrived to dispossess them.
3. The comments have been received from the S.H.O., Police Station Baddomalhi who has reiterated the stand of the prosecution narrated in Crime Case No. 109 dated 25-6-1996 registered at Police Station Baddomalhi. According to the S.H.O. The case was being investigated by the A.D.I.-G, Gujranwala and the application filed by Muhammad Ilyas petitioner for the registration of the case has been sent to him.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Advocate- General and gone through the file in hand. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the police party helped the adverse party of the petitioner who took the law in their hands and that the version of the police narrated in F.I.R. No.109 dated 25-6-1996 is simply concocted. He added that the occurrence has taken place in a different manner and that it is not a case of recording of the cross-version especially when the police was on a sound footing for the accelerated registration of the F.I.R. By twisting the facts. The main contention of the learned Additional Advocate-General is that about one occurrence only one F.I.R. Can be registered and that the version of both the parties can be looked into, analysed and while investigating the case.
At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner referred to different rulings of the superior Courts, which shall be referred to infra, making out that if there was any legal justification the second F.I.R.
Can be registered.
5. First of all I would like to refer to the case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for Muhammad Ilyas petitioner as under:---
(i) It has been held in Akram A.I Shah v. Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Kasur and 2 others PLD 1979 Lahore 320 that if F.I.R. Pertaining to a particular occurrence has already been registered, another F.I.R. Containing counter-version of same occurrence can also be registered as the registration of the counter F.I.R. Would be equitable.
(ii) According to Abdul Ghani v. S.H.O., P.S. Saddar, Sheikhupura and others 1983 PCr.LJ 2172 Lahore where there are two cross versions of occurrence which has already been reported to the police, the registration of the second F.I.R. Totally on different premises about the manner of occurrence cannot be refused by the Station House Officer who has to investigate the matter thereafter.
(iii) In Halim Sarwar v. S.H.O., Police Station Marala and 2 others 1984 PCr.LJ 2993 it has been held that F.I.R. Having been registered on the basis of one side version the registration of a second F.I.R.
Showing a different grievance could not be refused by the Police Officer in the proper performance of his legal duty under section 154, Cr.P.C. It has further been held that if the second F.I.R. Is found as false or incorrect in the investigation the S.H.O. Can proceed in accordance with law for cancellation of the same.
(iv) It is ruled in Muhammad Siddique v. S.H.O., Police Station, Muzaffarabad 1995 PCr.LJ 1477 (Shariat Court Azad J&K) that the police was not debarred to register the case on counter version if the same disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence and that rather in such circumstances police had no option but to register the case a; laid down by section 154, Cr.P.C.
6. The aforesaid rulings are attracted to the facts of the dispute in hand. It seems that the S.H.O. Is not attending to the request of Muhammad Ilyas petitioner as according to the petitioner some of the accused are the members of the police force. This aspect of the matter need not be given the weight especially when the case-law is not bereft/lacking of the judicial decisions, as referred to above, that the second F.I.R. In appropriate case(s) can be registered.
7. In the circumstances of the matter in hand I hold that it is a fit case wherein an order should be passed for the registration of the F.I.R. At the instance of Muhammad Ilyas petitioner according to his version. I, therefore accept this writ petition and direct the S.H.O., Police Station Baddomalh District Narowal to register the case on the written complaint of Muhammad Ilyas petitioner.
8. Consequently Muhammad Ilyas petitioner is directed to appear before the S.H.O., Police Station Baddomalhi, District Narowal on 11-9-1996 at 10-00 a.m. Alongwith written complaint arid a certified copy of this order who shall register the F.I.R. And shall proceed further in accordance with law. He shall hand over a copy of the F.I.R. To Muhammad Ilyas petitioner and would investigate the case in accordance with law.