ABRAR AHMAD vs DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER, DISTRICT VEHARI and 3 others
The petitioner filed a constitutional petition seeking a direction to the police authorities to record his statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and register a second First Information Report against new respondents regarding a murder case, alleging he was previously misled by witnesses. The Lahore High Court examined the record, which showed that the petitioner had already lodged a prior First Information Report for the same incident nominating different accused persons. The core legal question addressed was whether a first informant can insist on the registration of a second First Information Report based on changed versions or new information. The Court held that while the Station House Officer is under an obligation to record initial information under Section 154, once an First Information Report is recorded on the statement of the informant, the same informant cannot claim the recording of a second statement or registration of a fresh First Information Report for the same occurrence, although persons other than the first informant may furnish fresh information. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine, with the observation that the petitioner could pursue a private complaint.
- Whether the first informant can insist on the registration of a second FIR for the same occurrence upon changing his version?
- Is the SHO under an obligation to record a second statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. upon the request of the original complainant?
- Can a person aggrieved by the refusal to register a second FIR seek a remedy through a private complaint?
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.---The petitioner has prayed that respondent No, 2 be directed to record his statement under section 154, Cr.P.C. And register the second F.I.R. Against respondents Nos.3 and 4.
2. The petitioner is complainant of case F.I.R. No,395 of 2011 under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. Police Station Gaggo, District Vehari. He had alleged that Shahzad armed with Gun .12 bore, Rizwan armed with repeater Gun and Ijaz armed with repeater Gun along with three unknown armed persons made an attack on his Dera and caused Qatl-e-amd of his son Ishtiaq Ahmad. The motive was stated to be a minor altercation between the deceased and Shahzad accused. It was further added that he, Afzaal Ahmad, Shahid Iqbal and Abdul Qadir witnessed the occurrence.
3. It is contended that, in fact, the murder was caused by Amer Mushtaq and Naseem Ullah respondents Nos.3 and 4 and the occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Irfan and Muhammad Hussain but they kept mum due to their close relationship with respondents Nos.3 and 4, who had made extrajudicial confession also. He contended that he was informed by the said persons that Shahzad, etc., had murdered Ishtiaq Ahmad so he got the F.I.R. Lodged but then the witnesses stated before him on special oath that, in fact, respondents Nos.3 and 4 are actual culprits and that they had seen the occurrence so he moved an application for registration of the second FIR.
But respondent No,1 has refused to do the needful, who is under duty to register the second F.I.R.
After recording his statement under section 154, Cr.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the above contentions and urged that respondent No,2 was under obligation to reduce into writing the information furnished by him as the commission of cognizable offence was clearly made out.
5. The perusal of the record reveals that F.I.R. No,195 of 2011 under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. Police Station Gaggo, District Vehari, was registered on the statement of the petitioner. The statement recorded, by Muhammad Amin, A.S.-I clearly shows that he put his signatures on the same after admitting the correctness of its contents. A The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was misled by Afzaal Ahmad, etc. And the murder was actually committed by respondents Nos.3 and 4 and not the accused persons nominated in the F.I.R. So second F.I.R. Should have been registered according to petitioner's contention, is without force. It is true that the SHO is under obligation to record the statement of the informant under section 154, Cr.P.C., when he furnishes an information regarding commission of cognizable offence but once the F.I.R. Has been recorded on the statement of the informant, he cannot claim that his second statement be recorded under section 154, Cr.P.C. And fresh F.I.R. Be registered. No doubt if the person other than the complainant/first informant furnishes new facts and fresh information, the recording of the second F.I.R. Is not barred but the first informant cannot insist on registration of the second F.I.R. The request of the petitioner cannot be acceded to. However, if he has got any grievance in this regard, he may seek remedy in form of private complaint in accordance with law, if so desired.
6. For the reasons supra, the writ petition is without merits and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.