MIRZA vs THE S. H. O.

By means of this constitutional petition prayer has been made for issuance of a direction to the respondent S. H. O. To register a case for murder of Sooba and murderous assault on Muhammad Sarwar. The petitioner's version is that on 10th August, 1981 his opposite-party consisting of Safdar Ali, Tahir and others along with respondent S. H. O. And some constables came to his Behk and without any justification started firing under the direction of the respondent S. H. O. Muhammad Sarwar suffered fire-arm injuries at the hands of Tahir while Sooba was hit by the fire of Zaffar Ali and subsequently expired in the Hospital. The petitioner approached the respondent for the registration of the case but to no avail. Then he approached the Superintendent of Police, Sheikhupura, who marked the application to S. H. O. Chuharkana, but he also refused to register the case. The petitioner finally approached the Inspector-General of Police for the registration of the case, but to no avail. The other version contained in F.I.R. No. 185 dated 10th August 1981 lodged by aforesaid Safdar Ali is that Sooba and Sarwar along with others who were armed with fire-arms and dangs forcibly abducted Tahir, upon which he (Safdar Ali) along with others armed with licensed guns chased them, the accused party fired at them and they fired at the accused persons in return and during the firing his brother Iftikhar Ahmad sustained injuries on his legs by the fire of Khan Muhammad alias Khanu. In this F. I. R it is specifically stated that the complainant had learnt that the accused party had injured their own people, namely, Sooba and Sarwar and were trying to get medico-legal reports.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner contend that according to petitioner's version the members of the opposite party have committed cognizable offences, therefore, the respondent was under a statutory obligation to register the case. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent S. H. O. Vehemently argues that as the same occurrence has been reported through F.I.R. No. 185 dated 10th August, 1981 there is no question of recording another F. I. R. And the investigating agency can be directed to take down the petitioner's version during the investigation. It is to be noted that in the F.I.R. Referred to above the complainant had stated that he had learnt that Abbas accused etc. Had injured their own companions, namely, Sooba and Sarwar while the case of the petitioner is that Sooba and Sarwar suffered injuries at the hands of the members of the complainant party. He has, thus. a counter version by way of a grievance. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Akram Ali Shah v. S. H.

O. (PLD 1979 Lab. 320) and a D. B. Judgment of this Court in Abdul Ghani v. S. H. O. I. C. A. No. 64 of 1981 contend that in such a situation it is necessary to record the, cross-version in another F. I. R. In the circumstances, I accept this petition and direct the respondent S. H. O. To receive a written complaint from the petitioner and act in accordance with section 154, Cr. P. C. There will be no order as to costs.