GHULAM NABI SOOMRO, J.--By this petition, the petitioner Ghulam Hussain seeks registration of F.I.R.
(counter to the one already registered as F.I.R. No,18 of 2000) at Police Station Jhol of District Sanghar.
2. Facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner party claims the deceased Mst.
Saeedan to be their daughter-in-law, whereas the proposed accused party is the party of her real parents, her father being dead. Mst. Saeedan was killed on 22-5-2000 within the jurisdiction of Jhol Police Station at some distance from the house of her parents.
4. F.I.R. Of the incident was lodged on the same day within two hours of the incident at 5-00 p.m. By the uncle Ghulam Mustafa of the deceased, stating that her niece Mst. Saeedan (deceased) was earlier abducted by the petitioner party and such case F.I.R. No,40 of 1999 under sections 11/16, Zina Ordinance was pending in Court for trial. While they were sitting in their houses accused namely Naseer Khan, Ashiq Ali Bux and Ghulam Hussain started firing at their houses. On their coming towards road they saw two cars parked and further saw accused Mashooq Ali, Jaffer Khan, Khamiso and one unknown person holding Mst. Saeedan by her arms who was then crying for help.
5. It is alleged that accused told the complainant party that they were going to kill Mst. Saeedan as case of her abduction was not yet withdrawn, so they killed her there stating that her parents would be involved in her murder. F.I.R. No,18 of 2000 was thus, lodged by the lady's uncle.
6. Accused namely Naseer Khan, Ashiq Ali, Mashooq Ali and Khamiso have been challaned as accused of murder of Mst. Saeedan.
7. Accused Mashooq Ali has claimed to be the husband of the deceased lady through Court marriage.
8. Accused Khamiso a servant is shown to have received a fire-arm injury on his leg in the incident.
This single injury 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. Just above the knee has been certified by the Doctor as self- suffered.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on the case file.
10. It was argued by Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Qazi, learned counsel for the petitioner that under section 154, Cr.P.C. It was mandatory upon incharge of Police Station to register the case of a cognizable offence. According to him Mst. Saeedan was killed by her parents. F.I.R. No,18 of 2000 accusing the petitioner party of murdering their daughter-in-law is false. He relied upon case of Ghunwa Bhutto v. Government of Sindh PLD 1997 Karachi 119 and an unreported decision of Division Bench of this Court in C.P. No,D-1712 of 1999.
11. On the other hand Mr. Ali Nawaz Memon, learned counsel for the proposed accused argued that the deceased Mst. Saeedan was few months before her murder, abducted by the petitioner party and such abduction case F.I.R. No,40 of 1999 was pending trial in Court against the petitioner party.
12. It was further argued that the deceased was already married with her cousin Ali Muhammad son of the respondent Ghulam Mustafa (complainant in F.I.R. No,18 of 2000) and had also given birth to a child who died later. Counsel has referred to such certificate Annexure 'B' in the file. It was contended that after abduction Mashooq Ali of the petitioner party forcibly married with the deceased, as Mashooq Ali is a strong Wadera of the area while Ali Ahmed real husband of the deceased as well as her relatives are poor Hans.
13. It was further argued that in spite of the registration of the case of abduction of the deceased lady by the petitioner party, the deceased could not be secured by police. So, Ali Ahmed filed a Criminal Miscellaneous No,269 of 2000 at Hyderabad Bench, of this Court in which the deceased lady was required to appear. Petitioners knowing that the deceased was not willing to go to them killed her under a plan. Reliance was placed upon:--
(1) 1983 SCMR 436,
(2) PLD 1988 Karachi 521, and
(3) 1993 PCr.LJ 1056.
14. Mr. Habib Ahmed learned A.A.-G. Has opposed the prayer made in the petition and has stated that the petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing a complaint in the Court.
15. For the purposes of this petition, we need not go into further details.
16. We have perused the comments filed by the S.H.O. Of Police Station Jhol and the S.S.P. Of the District Sanghar. Both have strongly refuted the contents of the petition and termed the same as wrong and false.
17. We have also gone through the case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties. In the case of Ghanwa Bhutto v. Government of Sindh, it was observed that:-- "In case of a private complaint, the Magistrate to whom a complaint is made is empowered either to enquire into the case himself or direct an enquiry or investigation by a police officer or any other person referred to in section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, depending upon the circumstances of each case. Therefore, remedy by way of a private complaint is equally an effective and a practical remedy and thus, an adequate remedy." In case of Kaura v. The State and others 1983 SCMR 436, it was observed that:-- "5. It appears to us that once the case was registered vide F.I.R. 23 dated 7-2-1976 in respect of the murder of Haji Jewan the registration of a fresh report notwithstanding the divergent version contained therein was not called for inasmuch as the bail had already been set rolling and the Police was not only competent but also duty bound to unearth the true facts and trace the real culprits."
In the case of Yousif v. The State PLD 1988 Karachi 521, a Division Bench of this Court, while deciding a criminal appeal observed that:- "We hold that there was no need or justification for the Investigating Officer to file himself as a complainant second F.I.R. Because even without doing so he was quite competent under the law to continue the investigation and arrest persons against whom there was material to connect them with the offence regardless of the fact whether they were named in F.I.R. As accused persons or not.
The scope is so wide that the Police Officer can arrest even complainant as an accused person if during the investigation he comes across material and evidence which connects complainant with commission of crime."
18. In view of the above and under the circumstances stated above, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the petitioner. We, therefore, dismiss this petition.