' The facts as disclosed in the instant Constitutional petition are that the petitioner Raja Gulzar Ahmad, remained in United Kingdom from the year 1962 till the year 1996 and at present is residing in Nai Abadi, Mohallah New Shomali, Street No,5, Jhelum City. He has alleged in the instant Constitutional petition that during the night between 22/23-5-1997 at about 1-00 a.m. Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 in the instant petition, broke open the main door of the residence of the petitioner and in furtherance of their common intention they caused as many as six injuries on his person out of which two injuries sustained by him were declared as grievous in nature by the doctor- Respondents No,1 to 6 also took away forcibly from the residence of the petitioner a T.V. Set, Refrigerator, Deep Freezer, V.C.R. Micro Wave Ovan and Techno Cooking Range in a Tractor Trolly which they had parked outside the petitioner's house at the time of occurrence. It is further alleged that the said respondents also took away a black colourd Brief Case belonging to the petitioner in which gold ornaments weighing 100 Tolas and Saving Certificates worth Rs,16 lacs were lying. The occurrence alleged by the petitioner was witnessed by Messrs Jehanzeb, Asif Pervez and Nadir Khan P.Ws. Who happened to be staying in the petitioner's house that night. The petitioner was medically examined by the officials of Police Station Civil Lines, Jhelum and the copy of the medico-legal report recorded is appended to the petition by way of Annexure 'A'.
2. The motive behind the occurrence as disclosed in the petition by the petitioner is that respondent No,1, Mushtaq Ahmad, who is brother-in law of the petitioner wants to usurp the property of the petitioner because he is issueless having no children from his marriage with the said respondent's sister Mst. Khadija Begum. It has been further alleged in the petition that in order to get away with the said occurrence respondents Nos.1 to 6 connived and conspired with respondent No,8/S.H.O., P.S. Civil Lines, Jhelum, and got a false case registered against the petitioner and M/s. Jehanzeb, Asif Pervez and Nadir Khan, the aforesaid witnesses of the occurrence as per the avertnents in the petition vide F.I.R. No,70, dated 23-5-1997 under sections 458/324/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Civil Lines, Jhelum.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that after his release from jail in the said criminal case registered against him at the instance of respondents Nos.1 to 6, he approached respondent No,8, S.H.O., P.S. Civil Lines, Jhelum, time and again to register a F.I.R. Of the occurrence as alleged by him in the instant petition but the said respondent who is in league with respondents No,1 to 6 refused to do so whereupon he was constrained to approach this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction to have a case registered against respondents Nos.1 to 6 in respect of the occurrence as alleged in the petition and briefly alluded to hereinabove.
4. To consider the contentions hereinabove raised by Malik Muhammad Nawaz Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and to examine the propriety of registering or otherwise of an F.I.R. In terms of the allegations made by the petitioner in his Constitutional petition, I had sent for Mr. Altaf Elahi Sheikh, learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab to appear and assist the Court on the questions thus raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly Mr. Altaf Elahi Sheikh, learned Additional Advocate-General appeared on Court's call alongwith Ghulam Ahmad Sub-Inspector from Police Station Civil Lines, Jhelum, whereas the complainant was represented before the Court by Raja Abdul Aziz Bhatti, Advocate. As the questions raised by the learned counsel for the parties prima facie required consideration and deeper examination, the writ petition was admitted to regular hearing vide this Court's Order dated 26-8-1997 and the parties' learned counsel called upon to address detailed arguments in support of their respective versions of the case.
5. Malik Muhammad Nawaz Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the F.I.R. Alleged to have been registered in respect of the said occurrence was wholly false, one-sided and based on a concocted story at the behest of respondents No,1 to 6 who were in league with respondent No,8/S.H.O., P.S. Civil Lines, Jhelum. His main submission was that he has given a definite account of the occurrence in his petition and that the F.I.R. Alleged to have been registered in respect of the said occurrence by Police Station Civil Lines, Jhelum, is absolutely silent as to the allegations made by the petitioner. Rather the occurrence as alleged by the petitioner finds no mention whatever in the said F.I.R. And that as many as six injuries were caused to the petitioner by respondents No, 1 to 6 out of which two had been declared grievous by the doctor. The medico- legal report as to the said injuries was got recorded by none else but the officials of the said police station themselves. He maintained that he approached with a written complaint the S.H.O. Of Police Station Civil Lines, Jhelum to register a case itt respect of the occurrence as alleged by the petitioner in the instant Constitutional petition but the said S.H.O. In league as he is with respondents Nos.1 to 6 has refused to do so. In the circumstances there was no alternative left with the petitioner but to approach this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction to demand of the said S.H.O. To discharge the obligations cast on him by the provisions 'of section 154, Cr.P.C. And to register the case against respondents Nos.1 to 6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that an information as to the commission of a cognizable offence on being brought to the notice of a Police Officer Incharge of the Police Station whether orally or in writing obliges the said police officer to record an F.I.R. Under section 154, Cr.P.C. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that in the case in hand on the basis of the allegations as made in the instant Constitutional petition, there could be no two opinions that respondents Nos.1 to 6 had committed cognizable offences, thereby casting .a duty on respondent No,8 to register a first information report with regard thereto. There was no discretion vesting in him to refuse to do so in the circumstances of this case.
6. Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that notwithstanding the registration of the F.I.R. As alleged by respondents, the second F.I.R. In the peculiar circumstances of this case was neither barred nor could be refused to be registered.
7. Raja Abdul Aziz Bhatti, Advocate, appearing for the complainant contended that as F.I.R. No, 70 dated 23-5-1997 had already been registered by the Police Station Civil Lines, Jhelum, in respect of this very occurrence, second F.I.R. Was not called for. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the following judgments which are qualified by the facts therein stated:--
(i) Kaura v. The State and others 1983 SCMR 436;
(ii) Sajjad Ahmad v.S.H.O., P.S. Kunjah and another PLD 1993 Lah. 18;
(iii) Malik Anjum Farook Paracha and 7 others v. Manzoor-ul-Haq Chohan and 4 others 1993 PCr.LJ 1056;
(iv) Riaz Ahmad v. The Inspector of Police/Station House Officer, P.S. Baseerpur etc. 1991 PCr.LJ 6.
8. It would thus, appear that the precise question which needs determination by this Court is as to whether in the presence of the F.I.R. Registered and referred to hereinabove, the second F.I.R. Can or cannot be registered.
9. I have surveyed the case-law for and against the proposition and on the basis thereof, I am of the considered opinion that in the circumstances of this case second F.I.R. Could not be refused to be registered. In Halim Sarwar v. S.H.O., P.S. Head Marala and 2 others (1984 PCr.LJ 2993) after reveiwing a number of judgments cited before his lordship Mr. Justice Gul Zarin Kiani, as he then was, held that:--" if the commission of a cognizable offence was brought to the notice of the S.H.O., then he could not refuse to register a formal F.I.R.. For, it was his duty to record the information and to proceed and investigate the matter as provided in section 154, Cr.P.C. His lordship further held that "even if an F.I.R. Has been registered on the basis of one-sided version, registration of a second F.I.R. Showing a different grievance could not be refused by the police in proper performance of its duty under section 154, Cr.P.C.
' In Ch. Ataullah v. Ch. Mumtaz Ahmad Kahloon and 3 others 1973 PCr.LJ 69, Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, J. Held as follows:-- "It is one thing to say that some case is registered with reference to a particular incident and quite another that a case is registered with reference to the particular allegations. It is admitted by the learned counsel that no case registered in respect of the allegations made in this case. If some other case was registered in respect of the incident which happened on that day that would not be a bar for the registration of another case on different allegations though arising out of the same incident."
' The contention raised against the registration of the second F.I.R. Was then repelled by his Lordship Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, J. By holding that "the contention of the learned counsel is untenable, if accepted, it will mean that there can be no cross-cases registered at the instance of the contending parties opposing each other."
' In Sawant v. S.H.O., Kasur etc. PLD 1975 Lah. 733, his lordship Mr. Justice Atta Ullah Sajjad, J. As he then was, held as follows:-- "The provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C. Are imperative in nature. The information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence has to be reduced by the S.H.O. Into writing and investigation has to be conducted therein. The version given by the complainant party only describes their side of the case as to how the offence was committed. The petitioner now insists, this version is not correct and that his side of the case should be investigated according to law. Of course, it is open to him to file a complaint but the learned counsel for the petitioner insists that it is his right to demand that the police should do their duty and investigate his side of the case.
' It was further held by his Lordship in the same judgment that 'in my view, the correct legal procedure for the police should have been to record the F.I.R. Containing the counter version and to have investigated it. If they found that the evidence adduced by the petitioner did not sustain the charge, they could have submitted a report to the Magistrate for cancellation of the case. It was held by the learned Chief Justice in Ch. Ataullah v. Ch. Mumtaz Ahmad Kahloon and 3 others 1973 PCr.LJ 69 that even if the police has made investigation in a case with reference to the particular evidence produced by one party, another report with reference to the same incident is not barred. I respectfully follow this dictum. I also say with great respect that the language of section 154, Cr.P.C.
Is imperative and the police officer cannot dub the counter version as false without first investigating the matter. His duty is to make investigation.'
' Again in Syed Saeed Muhammad Shah and another v. The State 1993 SCMR 550, his lordship Syed Sajjad Ali Shah, Chief Justice of Pakistan with reference to the provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C. Held that 'under section 154, Cr.P.C. It is mandatorily bounden duty of the police officer to register F.I.R. Of cognizable offence'.
' In Muhammad Afzal v. Muhammad Ashraf and 15 others 1996 PCr.LJ 489, the learned Single Judge of Azad J&K High Court after surveying almost the entire case-law on the point held: 'a critical survey of the statutory law laid down in section 154, Cr.P.C. Analysis of the authorities referred to above and the consensus of the authorities reveals that the second F.I.R. Is not barred in appropriate cases disclosing cognizable offence, particularly the cases of counter versions. The argument that there shall be no end of registration of F.I.Rs, in one occurrence, can be successfully met by a guarantee provided in section 182, Cr.P.C. Ensuring the correctness of the information and investigation conducted by a police officer under section 157, Cr.P.C. If any person gives the first information report/statement to a police officer turning to be false, the informant can be liable to punishment under the above section but in case of refusal, there can be greater hardships for the informant against whom a case has been registered against the facts. Therefore, in my view the correct legal procedure for the police is to record the F.I.R. Containing the information with regard to the counter version and to investigate it. If they find that the evidence adduced by the informant did not sustain the charge, they can submit the report to the Magistrate for cancellation of the case."
10. A bare perusal of the extracts from the various judgments referred to and reproduced hereinabove, would show that the registration of a second F.I.R. Embodying the counter version of a case is neither legally barred nor can such an F.I.R. Be refused to be registered. Reverting to the facts of the instant case as already pointed out the F.I.R. Already registered in this case is conspicuous by the absence of any mention whatever of the facts as alleged by the petitioner, Raja Gulzar Ahmad. In the absence of the registration of an F.I.R. Embodying the allegations of the petitioner, there is no question of the investigation of the same. The information as to the commission of the cognizable offences having been brought to the notice of the S.H.O. By the petitioner Raja Gulzar Ahmad, he just could not refuse to register the F.I.R. Containing his version of the case. In the light of what has been discussed hereinabove, the instant petition is therefore, accepted. The petitioner Raja Gulzar Ahmad, shall approach the S.H.O., P.S. Civil Lines, Jhelum with a written application containing his version of the case and the said S.H.O. Shall register an F.I.R.
Pursuant thereto.
11. In order to do complete justice to the parties and keeping in view the demands of fairness and fair play, it is further directed that the F.I.R. Having been registered by the S.H.O., P.S. Civil Lines, Jhelum pursuant to the orders hereby made, the same shall be investigated by S.P., Crimes Branch, Rawalpindi. Why is it necessary that the investigation of this case be entrusted to the S.P., Crime Branch, Rawalpindi is because of the facts forming the background of this case. Respondent No,1 in the instant writ petition, Raja Mushtaq Ahmad, is a practising Advocate at the District Courts, Jhelum. It was argued before this Court that the F.I.R. Already registered in this case was registered at the asking of the entire District Bar Jhelum who went up to the S.S.P., Jhelum to have the same recorded and it is also a matter of record that the earlier F.I.R. Was registered under the orders of the S.P., Jhelum. The entire Bar being thus, allegedly so much involved in the affair and the S.H.O., P.S. Civil Lines, Jhelum being directly subordinate to S.P., Jhelum at whose instance and under whose orders the first F.I.R. Has been registered, if the matter is left to be investigated by the same S.H.O. Justice shall not be done to the case and the petitioner shall remain as aggrieved as he is now.
' The instant writ petition is accordingly accepted with these observations and in the above terms.