The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to record the statement of the 'petitioner, father of the deceased Muhammad Afzal under section 154, Cr.P.C. And to treat him as a complainant and to allow him to join the investigation and pursue the case.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner's son Muhammad Afzal was called by one Madhu at the evening of 7-4-2000 and later on he was murdered alongwith one Imtiaz Ahmad in the garden.
Two girls were also murdered on the same night by Muhammad Boota, and a case F.I.R.. No, 123 was registered at Police Station Manawala, District Sheikhupura manoeuvred by the said Muhammad Boota with the connivance of the local police to escape from the liability. It is further submitted that there is sufficient evidence which involves the said Muhammad Boota and others in the murder of the son of petitioner and others. It is further submitted that the said Muhammad Boota is a very influential person, therefore, he has succeeded to lodge a fictitious F.I.R. And surprisingly the witnesses, mentioned therein are the proclaimed offenders, to the best information of the petitioner yet, instead of arresting them the actual culprits have been made guests of the local police and that when the petitioner approached to the local police for recording of its statement under section 154, Cr.P.C, he was refused and later on, he has been threatened, not to pursue the case otherwise, he may be fixed in difficulties. It is also submitted that the petitioner is the father of deceased Muhammad Afzal who has been brutally murdered and instead of recording the version of the petitioner, the local police is bent upon to spoil the case, relying upon the fictitious witnesses, to benefit the actual culprits. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon 1999 PCr.LJ 1706.
3. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both sides.
4. The relevant law is contained in section 154, Cr.P.C. It reads as under: ' S.
154. Information in cognizable cases.---"Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer in charge of a 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 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."
5. In the case of Emperor v. Lalji Rai (AIR 1936 Pat. 11) and Emperor v. Aftab Ahmed Khan (AIR 1940 All.
291) and in the case of Ghulam Sarwar v. The State (PLD 1959 Lah. 1002) where there were two F.I.Rs, about the same incident made by two different persons at different places, one earlier in time than the other it was held that the latter is to be considered an independent F.I.R. And can be used in evidence by prosecution. In the case of Allah Ditta v. S.H.O. PLD 1987 Lahore 300 a Division Bench of this Court observed that a second F.I.R. Is to be registered when new case is made out and there is not mere elaboration of the first F.I.R. And also cognizable offence is made out. In the case of Ghulam Hussain v. Siraj-ul-Haq 1987 PCr.LJ 1214 were also the Division Bench observed that second F.I.R. Giving different version of the same incident although the incident is admitted in the first F.I.R. Can be registered and there is no bar to it. In the case of Malik Muhammad Aslam v. S.H.O. PLD 1981 Lahore 138 it was observed that second F.I.R. For the same incident but with different version and allegations is not barred. In the case of Halim Sarwar v. S.H.O.
1984 PCr.LJ 2993, it was observed that registration of second F.I.R. With a different version about the same incident cannot be refused by police officer. In the case of Abdul Ghani v. S.H.O. 1983 PCr.LJ 2172 it was observed that second F.I.R. About the same occurrence but with a different version should be registered by the S.H.O. When informed by a party. In the case of Hamayun Khan and another v. Muhammad Ayub Khan and 4 others (1999 PCr.LJ 1706) where second F.I.R. Was recorded on the report of a different person with regard to the fire-arm injuries received and the learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that an F.I.R. Having been already registered at the same police station on behalf of one Mehmood Khan, no second F.I.R. Against the same occurrence could be lodged and in support of his plea the said counsel had cited the case of Kaura v. The State (1979 PCr.LJ 521). It was observed by the Honourable Cheif Justice of Peshawar High Court sitting singly that the cited case was distinguishable and the provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C. Did not conceive of a second F.I.R. Being recorded at the complainant's instance with regard to the same occurrence, but in the instant case F.I.R. Was recorded on the report of a different person with regard to fire shot injuries received and for which he charged the petitioners, as neither the different person in the later F.I.R. Nor the petitioner were mentioned in the first F.I.R. And that 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 was placed on the case of Muhammad Latif v. S.H.O. And others (1993 PCr.LJ 1992).
6. In the light of the above interpretation of section 154, Cr.P.C. The petition is allowed and the respondent No,2 is directed to get the F.I.R. Recorded and copy shall be delivered to the petitioner immediately. A compliance report of this order shall also be sent to this Court through the Registrar to be kept on this file. Copy Dasti. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.