MUHAMMAD AZAM vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, ISLAMABAD and 2

ORDER

' In this appeal, the learned counsel has called in question order of the learned single Bench of this Court dated 15-7-2003 passed in writ petition No,2289 of 2002. In the said order learned Single Bench held that:-- "it shall meet the ends of justice to entrust the investigation of the entire occurrence to a senior officer in FIA who shall not be less than the rank of a director FIA who shall examine the version of both the parties, independently and impartially after giving full opportunity to the parties* to produce oral and documentary evidence in support of its version. The said investigation shall be concluded positively within three months and along with other findings it shall also recommend whether a separate F.I.R in line with one as contended by the petitioner is liable to be registered."

2. In the occurrence, subject matter of this appeal, two persons namely Haq Nawaz and Muhammad Latif lost their lives and five other were seriously injured. The grievance of the appellant is that existing F.I.R. No, 221 of 2002 dated 29-7-2002 does not reflect the true account of the occurrence.

3. It may also be pointed out that an inquiry was also conducted by the District & Sessions Judge, Islamabad in this matter. In the said inquiry report it was recommended that the investigation may be conducted by another agency instead of Islamabad police. It seems from the impugned order that this recommendation was approved and got favour from the learned Single Bench.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their respective arguments.

5. We are afraid under the FIA Act, 1974, the FIA was not competent to investigate F.I.R. No,221 of 2002 as offences mentioned in the F.I.R were not included in the Schedule on the date impugned order B was passed i,e, 15-7-2003. The Schedule was amended on 18-8-2004 and now section 302 stands included. Likewise, inquiry prior to registration of an F.I.R. Is not contemplated under the provisions of the Code. This C point has been resolved repeatedly by the superior Courts of this country. In this regard, reference may be made to PLD 2005 Lahore 470 and PLD 2007 SC 539.

6. Similarly, it has been repeatedly held by superior Courts of the country that where a different, opposite or a cross version is put forth by the complainant which discloses commission of cognizable offence, second F.I.R. Is not barred. In this regard, reference may be made to PLD 1978 Lahore 187 and Miss Ghanwa Bhuttoo and others vs. Government of Sindh and others, PLD 1997 Karachi 119.

7. In view of the above discussion and foregoing reasons, we direct S.H.O. Of the concerned police station to register second F.I.R on the complaint of the appellant. It is further directed that investigation shall E be conducted by the local police instead of FIA as required under the Police Order, 2002. The Investigating Officer shall take into account the mandate and provision of Rule 25.2 of the Police Rules, 1934. This I.C.A. Is allowed in the above terms.