' On the report of one Mahmood Khan a case under sections 324, 148 and 149, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station, Matta (Swat District) on 20-7-1997 vide F.1.R. No,357. During investigation of the said case on the report of respondent No,1, namely, Muhammad Ayub Khan a second case was registered in the same police station on 17-1-1998 vide F.I.R. No,17 under sections 324 and 34, P.P.C.
The respondent was hit through firing allegedly at the hands of the petitioners, but neither the name of Muhammad Ayub Khan nor that of Hamayun Khan and Shah Roum Khan were mentioned in the first F.I.R. He (Muhammad Ayub Khan) on this made an application to the local police and after inquiry another F.I.R. (No,17) was written against Hamayun Khan and Shah Roum Khan on 17-1- 1998 under sections 324 and 34, P.P.C. For the abashment of which the petitioners have now moved this Court under inherent jurisdiction conferred by section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
2. I have heard Syed Sardar Hussain, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Saleem Dil Khan, Advocate on behalf of respondent No,1 and Mr. Abdur Rauf Khan Gandapur, Advocate for the State. Syed Sardar Hussain, Advocate argued that as the occurrence had been reported to police on 20-7-1997 on the report of Mahmood Khan and registered vide F.I.R. No,357 at Police Station Matta (Swat), no new case could be registered in the same cognizable offences on a second report and F.I.R. Bearing No,17 was, thus, illegally registered subsequently, in the police station on 17-1-1998 at the instance of respondent Muhammad Ayub Khan. The record would show that in F.I.R. No,357, dated 20-7-1997 registered at Police Station, Matta on the report of Mahmood Khan there is no mention of either Muhammad Ayub Khan respondent or that of Hamayun Khan and Shah Roum Khan petitioners, whatsoever, who had received bullet injuries allegedly in the same firing and charged the said two persons on that count. On his application to the local police an inquiry was initiated and a separate case vide F.I.R. No,17 was registered in the police station on 17-1-1998 under sections 324 and 34, P.P.C. Against accused Hamayun Khan and Shah Roum Khan which is now under investigation. The learned counsel vehemently argued that F.I.R. No,357 having been registered on 20-7-1997 at the police station on behalf of one Mahmood Khan, no second F.I.R. Against the same occurrence could be lodged and in support thereof cited the case Kaura v. A The State 1979 PCr.LJ 521. The cited case is distinguishable. The provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C. Do not conceive of a second F.I.R. Being recorded at complainant's instance with regard to the same occurrence, but in the instant case F.I.R. No,17 of 17-1-1998 was recorded on the report of a different person, namely, Muhammad Ayub Khan with regard to fire shot injuries received and for which he charged the petitioners, as neither Muhammad Ayub Khan nor the accused-petitioners Hamayun Khan and Shah Roum Khan were mentioned in the first F.I.R. Of Mahmood Khan No,357, dated 20-7-1997. It was, therefore, obligatory upon the police to register a separate report there being no bar of the first F.I.R. As a new case was made out by the respondent disclosing allegations of separate cognizable offences, as recording of a second F.I.R. Shall depend upon the facts of each case and the matter is to be seen in the context of totality of the circumstances and the allegations made in second F.I.R. Reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Latif v. S.H.O. And others 1993 PCr.LJ 1992.
3. The learned counsel additionally stated that during investigation of the first case Muhammad Ayub Khan made a statement before the Investigating Officer and the petitioners were arrested as such who subsequently were released on bail by this Court on 3-12-1997. Be this as it may, the argument cannot stop for registration of the second report against the petitioners by initiating a separate case for gun shot injuries allegedly caused to the respondent at their hands which is supported by medico-legal evidence. The learned counsel in the circumstances, could not make out any case for the indulgence of this Court in the matter under inherent powers as it may accommodate one party at the cost of other. .