1. ' This revision petition/application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed for quashment of two even dated orders passed by Additional District Criminal Court, Muzaffarabad on 18-7-2003, whereby a challan filed in pursuance of F.I.R. No.56 of 2003 registered at Police Station Muzaffarbad is entertained for hearing, and another order of the said Court whereby a formal charge-sheet is framed against the accused under sections 324, 147, 142, 149 and 302 of the Penal Code and 13/20/65 of Arms Act.
2. ' The case of the petitioners as stated in the petition and argued at bar by their learned Advocate is that two counter cases under F.I.R. Nos.55 of 2003 and 56 of 2003 were registered at Police Station Muzaffarabad on the report of the parties against each other. Both the cases culminated into Challans Nos.I10 of 2003 and 111 of 2003, which are filed before the Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Muzaffarabad. The accused persons in both the cases are summoned. The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners is that when a report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed after investigation of F.I.R. No.55 of 2003 in the Court, it was not lawful for the prosecution agency to file the report under section 173 in respect of F.I.R. No.65 against the petitioners as the truth of the case in F.I.R. No.55 of 2003 culminating into challan excluded the possibility of truth and the statement made in F.I.R. No.56, hence the trial Court was not competent to entertain the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed in pursuance of F.I.R. No.56 and the process issued by the Court is without lawful authority.
3. ' It is further averred that the trial Court has exceeded its authority in incorporating such facts in its charge-sheet under section 242, Cr.P.C., which were never a part of F.I.R. Or the report filed under section 173 of Cr.P.C. The learned Advocate pointed out that the Court below has without any substance supported by F.I.R. And report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Recorded in charge-sheet that "the accused/petitioners were called by Ibrar Ahmed to the place of occurrence" and that "cause of occurrence was the dispute of a path between the parties". Elaborating his arguments the learned Advocate contended that the F.I.R. And charge-sheet didn't contain that Ibrar Ahmed called the accused petitioners to the place of occurrence or that the cause of occurrence was the dispute regarding a path between the parties. According the learned Advocate, the Court below could not go beyond the statement of the facts recorded in report under section 173, Cr.P.C. He relied upon (PLD 1963 AJ&K 33) and (PLD 1987 (SC) AJ&K 55).
4. ' Additional Advocate-General, Syed Ejaz Gillani defended the orders including the report contending that the challans in both F.I.Rs. Are filed after thorough investigations and the cases are being heard simultaneously. According to him, the accused petitioners can place their defence in the counter-case before the Court. He further contended that the charge-sheet framed by the Court under section 242, Cr.P.C. Is in accordance with law and the trial Court is authorized to take into consideration all the documents and statements filed by the prosecution at the time of framing of charge, in view of the section 265-D of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. ' After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties, I have gone through the record of the case, orders impugned before the Court and the law cited at bar.
6. As far the first contention of the learned Advocate is concerned that after the report under section 173, C.P.C. Is filed on the basis of F.I.R. No.55 of 2003, the subsequent report could not be filed on the basis of F.I.R. No.56 of 2003, it is devoid of force for the reason that the reports are filed by two adversaries stating their own version of occurrence, each blaming and accusing other for the occurrence. Each of the report discloses the commission of cognizable offence, alleging each other as responsible for offence. None of the counter-versions can be declared false without investigation, and once the facts narrated in the A information report are supported by the evidence, the investigation Officer is bound to file the report on the basis of F.I.R. Before the Court under section 173, Cr.P.C. However, if after investigation, counter report is found to be false, it can be cancelled and police can initiate proceedings under the provisions of section 182 of the Penal - Code for false report. In this case, both the reports narrate separate and independent versions, accusing other as aggressor.
7. I have meticulously gone through the F.I.Rs. And the reports lodged on the basis of these F.I.Rs. Two different and opposite versions are put up by the adversaries against each other wherein the manner of commission of the offence and other details are different from the other. Under these circumstances, police was justified to report and place both the versions before the Court, which would be in position to determine and adjudicate upon as to which of the versions is false or correct orwhich of the accused persons were responsible and liable to be held guilty. The Court under the circumstances is bond to put up in juxtaposition both the versions and then come to the conclusion. It is wrong to suggest that when a F.I.R. Is registered and the report under section 173 is filed on the basis of this F.I.R., the other version becomes redundant or not actionable. Both the parties, as alleged in the report, have suffered injuries and each of the parties gives its own version regarding the injuries, hence the police has rightly filed the separate reports and the Court below is bound to hear both the cases simultaneously. The Court below has, therefore, rightly issued the process on the basis of report filed under section 173, Cr.P.C.
8. ' As far the second contention of the learned Advocate that the Court below has without any substance supported by F.I.R. Or report under section 173, Cr.P.C., charged the accused persons on the allegation that "Ibrar Ahmed called the petitioners to the place of occurrence, and "that cause of occurrence was a dispute of path between the parties", is concerned, the F.I.R. As well as the report under section 173, Cr.P.C., no doubt, do not state these facts unequivocally. However, when the police diaries were perused, the statements of some of the prosecution witnesses particularly Munir Ahmed, Raja Asif etc., prosecution witnesses have so stated.
9. While framing the charge, the Court has to consider not only F.I.R. And report under section 173, Cr.P.C., but all other documents and statements filed by prosecution under section 265-D, Cr.P.C.
10. The report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Or F.I.R. Alone are not the documents which show the commission of offence, but the prosecution case, as a whole is to be seen, which includes the recovery memos., the site plan, the statement of the witnesses under sections 161 or 164, Cr.P.C.
11. Framing of the charge means commencement of the trial of accused. The object of charging accused is to make him aware, abreast and alert about the allegations and the basis on which the allegations are levelled against him. It enables the accused to know the precise accusation against him which he is required to meet before commencement of evidence of the prosecution.
12. The primary object of proceedings prescribed under section 242, Cr.P.C. Is to determine whether the accused pleads guilty to the charge or demands to be tried. An opportunity is provided under section 242, Cr.P.C. To the accused to state anything he likes in his defence in explanation of the charges framed against him. He is at liberty to take up any plea. Provisions of the alleged offence have to be explained to accused so that he knows what the charge against him is, which he has to face in trial, to defend himself. If the accused admits the charge, he is liable to conviction under section 243 of the Cr.P.C. And if he denies thecharge, provisions of section 243 become inoperative and the Court thereafter has to proceed under section 244, Cr.P.C. By hearing complainant and his evidence and afterward accused and his evidence in defence.
13. ' The Court charging the accused under section 242, Cr.P.C. Has to be careful in recording the statement of accused, if he pleads guilty and admits the charge. If the accused is convicted on the basis of improperly framed charge and allegation levelled against him by prosecution under section 173, Cr.P.C. Are not properly put to him, the defective charge would vitiate the trial and conviction. However, incorporation of certain evidentiary circumstances in the charge, which are allegedly not a part of F.I.R. Or report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Does not prejudice the accused as they find place in the statements of some prosecution witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. Be that as it may, the accused are not convicted on the basis of this charge. They have denied it, and it has, thereafter, become irrelevant. The responsibility is shifted to the shoulders of prosecution to prove the charge and accused is at liberty to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and lead their evidence in defence, if so required.
14. ' The authorities of law referred by learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners i.e. PLD 1963 AJ&K 33 (The State'v. Muhammad Yaqoob) and PLD 1987 SC (AJ&K) 65 (Ibrar Hussain Shah v. The State) are inapplicable in the case in hand. In the former case the accused were convicted on the basis of admission in defective charge under section 242, Cr.P.C., while in the latter case, the defect in the charge was due to the formation of the Court.
15. ' In view of above, finding no force in.This petition, it is hereby dismissed.