DHONO MAI vs SESSIONS JUDGE and another

ORDER

' IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMEN, J.--- Through this petition the petitioner seeks registration of a criminal case against respondent No,2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner is resident of Darkhast Jamal Khan Darmiayani Tehsil and District Dera Ghazi Khan. She resides with her sons. It is alleged that on 9-12-2006 a police party headed by respondent No,2 along with 15 other police officials arrested her son namely Ijaz and after handcuffing him opened fire on him. He received five fire shots in his abdomen and legs. It is further alleged that the petitioner's son namely Riaz tried to rescue his brother Ijaz who was also given beatings and his hand was fractured; that the petitioner filed an application for registration of a criminal case with regard to the above mentioned occurrence before respondent No,1. The grievance of the petitioner was not redressed.

Resultantly, the petitioner was constrained to file a petition under section 22-A of Cr.P.C. Before respondent No,

1. A report was called for from the D.S.P., Saddar Circle, Dera Ghazi Khan. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan after filing of the comments by respondent No,2 prayer of the petitioner for recording a separate F.I.R. Was dismissed vide order, dated 8-1-2007. It was observed "petitioner's prayer is for recording of separate F.I.R. As according to her version police has concocted a false story of police encounter just to save their skin. But in my opinion recording of separate F.I.R. Will serve no useful purpose as in the F.I.R. Already recorded firing from police side has also been admitted. As such recording of cross-version will server the purpose.

Needless to observe that Investigating Officer on submission of any such application in this regard is duty bound to put the same in black and white and proceed with the investigation".

2. After the dismissal of the petition for recording of a separate F.I.R. By the learned Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan the petitioner has moved the instant constitutional petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the occurrence has been admitted in the comments filed by respondent No,2, as such, a cognizable offence has been made out and respondent No,1 is bound to order registration of criminal case against respondents Nos.2 and 15 other police officials for causing injuries to the son of the petitioner. Reliance in this regard is placed on 1993 PCr.LJ 1992. It is further stated that there is no bar for the registration of the second F.I.R. And in this regard reliance is placed on 2007 PCr.LJ 147.

4. On the other hand, it is argued by learned counsel for the respondents along with the learned A.A.-G. That there are 13 cases of heinous nature registered against the son of the petitioner namely Ijaz, 8 cases are registered against his brother. They have created terror in the locality. At the time when the police went to arrest Ijaz accused the petitioner and his brother started firing on the police party; that the petitioner while admitting in the Nishtar Hospital, Multan get himself registered in the name of his brother; that the application for registration of the case filed by petitioner was filed after three days i.e. On 12-12-2006; the petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 9-12-2006. He was discharged on 14-12-2006. Moreover 2nd F.I.R. Of the same occurrence cannot be registered. Further contended that recording of version of the petitioner in the instant case is permissible under the law and the learned Sessions Judge has also observed so, as such, recording of version would serve the purpose. The petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing a private complaint as profounded in Khizar Hayat and others v. Inspector-General of Police PLD 2005 Lah.

470.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. Admittedly, F.I.R. No,183 of 2006 has been registered on the complaint of Umer Farooq; that in the comments filed in the petition under section 22-A before the learned Sessions Judge by the D.P.O., it is stated that the matter was referred to the D.S.P. Saddar Circle, for inquiry who held that when the police party conducted raid for the arrest of son of the petitioner Ijaz he along with his brother and another has started firing upon the police party whereupon the police had made firing upon the said proclaimed offender Ijaz son of the petitioner. In this regard F.I.R. Has already been recorded. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed that cross-version in the said case would serve the purpose and in such-like cases the superior Courts have rightly held that the recording of the cross-version in the same case is sufficient and would serve the purpose. The petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing a private complaint if he so desired as held in the case of Khizar Hayat (supra). There is no force in this petition-and the same is dismissed.