Seeks quashment of F.I.R. No.383 dated 5-11-2002 under sections 302, 147 and 149, P.P.C, registered with Police Station Ali Pur Chattha, District Gujranwala.
2. The grievance voiced through the instant Constitutional petition is that Inayatullah (uncle), Ihsan Ullah (cousin) of the petitioner were Polling Agents from Muslim League (Q) of Polling Station No. 110 of NA-98, PP-97 Kot Jehangir during the General Elections of 2002 and on the same day (10-10- 2002) at 1-00 p.m. Ilyas Ahmad, Polling Agent for PPP candidate objected that Ihsan Ullah was watching the voters through window while affixing the stamps on the ballot papers. On the said complaint Iftikhar Hussain Kazmi, Presiding Officer intervened. Meanwhile some young persons raising Lalkaras entered in the polling station and had a quarrel with Polling Agents of Muslim League (Q). They also used "pandas" in the quarrel. Out of them were Zaheer. Mustafa son and nephew of Ilyas Ahmad, Polling Agent. In the scuffle Inayat Ullah uncle of the petitioner was injured and two persons namely Tufail and Sajjad Hussain also received injuries. Presiding Officer stopped the polling and matter was reported to the local police and F.I.R. No.353 dated 10-10-2002 under section 82 of the Peoples Representation Act was registered. It is further maintained that on the next day i.e. 11-10-2002 Sajjad Hussain succumbed to the injuries in the hospital and sections 302, 147 and 149, P.P.C. Were added in the above said F.I.R. Vide Rapt No.6 dated 11-10-2002. S.H.O. Of the said Police Station undertook the investigation, recorded the statements of Presiding Officer and other persons including Ilyas Ahmad son of Rehmand Khan, and Tufail injured under section 161, Cr.P.C. Post-mortem examination of Sajjad Hussain was also got conducted by him.
3. It is argued that on 5-11-2002 another F.I.R. No.383, which is sought to be quashed, was registered under sections 302, 147 and 149, P.P.C. Regarding the same occurrence, which is illegal and without lawful authority. Reliance has been placed on "Ghulam Siddique v. S.H.O., Saddar, Dera Ghazi Khan and 8 others" PLD 1979 Lahore 263, "Lakhmir v. The State" PLD 1968 Quetta 7, "Mansur Ali and 2 others v. The State" 1970 PCr.LJ 287. It has also been argued that the Presiding Officer had stated in the first F.I.R. That fight was started by the opposite-party who entered in the polling station while armed with "pandas" and not the petitioner and second F.I.R. Is with entire different version was got registered after 25 days; that the second F.I.R. Is result of ulterior motive as the candidate of PPP was declared elected in National Assembly and Provincial Assembly and the second F.I.R. Has been registered with twisted facts to implicate the petitioner.
4. The report and parawise comments sought from the D.P.O., Gujranwala, are available on record.
5. The petition has been opposed by the learned Additional A.-G. And learned counsel for the complainant of case F.I.R. No.383 of 2002. They have argued that application for registration of the case was moved by the complainant on very next day i.e. 11-10-2002. In the first F.I.R., there was no mention of the accused, who caused injuries to the deceased. In the F.I.R. Got registered by the complainant, specific role has been attributed and there is no bar for registration of second F.I.R.
Reliance has been placed on "Mrs. Ghanwa Bhutto and another v. Government of Sindh and another" PLD 1997 Karachi 119, "Aijaz Ali v. S.H.O., Police Station Waleed, Larkana and 2 others" PLD 2002 Karachi 494. It has been further argued by making reference to "Imran Ashraf and 7 others v.
The State" 2001 SCMR 424 that police enjoys no jurisdiction to cause delay in registration of the case when cognizable offence has been reported and the complainant is an aggrieved person who reported the commission of cognizable offence and no illegality has been committed by registration of the second F.I.R. It has also been argued that the investigation of the case is complete and challan has been submitted in the prosecution branch and the accused named in F.I.R. Have been found guilty.
6. I have given due consideration to the contentions raised at the bar and case-law referred to by the respective parties and gone through the comments.
7. It is a case of two versions. In F. I. R. No.353 of 2002 Annexure "A" it has not been mentioned that who caused injuries to Muhammad Tufail injured and Sajjad Hussain deceased but in the application moved by Ilyas complainant in F.I.R. No.383 of 2002, has given the details of incident and specific role has been attributed to the petitioner/accused in the F.I.R. And his co---accused for having caused injuries. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in case "Imran Ashraf and 7 others v. The State" 2001 SCMR 424 held as under:-- "Section 154, Cr.P.C. Lays down procedure for registration of an information in cognizable cases and it also indeed gives mandatory direction for registration of the case as per the procedure.
Therefore, police enjoys no jurisdiction to cause delay in registration of the case under the law is bound to act accordingly enabling the machinery of law to come into play as soon as it is possible and if first information report is registered without any delay it can help the Investigating Agency in completing the process of investigation expeditiously. Any slackness or lukewarm attitude by the registering authority of F.I.R. In fact intends to help the accused involved in the commission of offence."
PLD 1997 Karachi 119, it has been held as under:-- "But in any case, the receipt and recording of an information report is not a condition precedent to the setting in motion of a criminal investigation. No doubt, in the great majority of cases, criminal prosecutions are undertaken as a result of information received and recorded in this way but their Lordships see no reason why the police, if in possession through their own knowledge or by means of credible though informal intelligence which genuinely leads them to the belief that a cognizable offence has been committed, should not of their own motion undertake an investigation into the truth of the matters alleged. Section 157, Criminal Procedure Code, when directing that a police officer, who has reason to suspect from information or otherwise that an offence which he is empowered to investigate under section 156 has been committed shall proceed to investigate the facts and circumstances, supports this view."
And the same principle has been followed in "PLD 2002 Karachi 494 titled Aijaz Ali v. S.H.O., Police Station Waleed, Larkana and 2 others, therefore, the trend of latest case--law is that whenever commission of cognizable offence is reported to the S.H.O., he is to register a case within the meaning of section 154, Cr.P.C. And recording of second F.I.R. Is no bar under the law in peculiar circumstances of each case. In the instant case, some different version with more detail has been given by specifying role to the accused in the second F.I.R. The time was consumed by the police for taking legal opinion from the District Attorney, therefore, I do not find any illegality in recording the subsequent F.I.R. In which the investigation has already been completed.
Regarding the allegation of the petitioner that accused have been implicated due to influence of returned candidate, the petitioner or co-accused if not satisfied with the investigation carried out by the local police, may approach the higher police officers for re-investigation of the case, in both the F.I.Rs., if so advised.
8. With the above observations, the instant petition is dismissed.