Salman vs Station House Officer, Police Station Cantonment Hyderabad
The petitioner filed a constitutional petition seeking to set aside an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which dismissed his application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, for the registration of a second FIR concerning an incident for which an FIR had already been registered and challaned. The core legal question was whether a second FIR can be registered in respect of the same incident when an FIR is already in existence. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the registration of a second FIR for the same incident is not permissible. Relying on the precedent Sughran Bibi v. The State (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 595), the court established the principle that once a first information report is registered, the matter becomes a case, and subsequent steps in investigation pertain to that case, thereby barring the registration of a second FIR.
- Whether a second FIR can be registered in respect of the same incident when an FIR has already been registered?
- Can an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace direct the registration of a second FIR for an occurrence that is already the subject of an existing case?
- Does the registration of a first information report preclude the registration of subsequent FIRs regarding the same transaction?
- Section 381, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J .---Through instant petition, petitioner Salman has sought for following relief(s):- "a) This Honourable Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 05.12.2016, passed by learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace, Hyderabad (learned respondent No.10) in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.2704/2016 as the said order is null, void, ab initio and not in accordance with law, hence liable to be set aside. b) This Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 SHO of P.S Cantonment Hyderabad to lodge FIR against the respondents Nos.2 to 9 who have committed cognizable of fences. c) Cost of the petition be saddled. d)..........."
2. Mr. Wazir Hussain Chandio Advocate files his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.3, which is taken on record.
3. Heard parties' advocates and perused the record.
4. It appears from the record that an FIR bearing Crime No.93/2015, under section s 381, 109, 34, P.P.C. has been registered by respondent No.2 at Polic e Station Cantonment Hyderabad, with regard to an incident of theft allegedly occurred on 01.09.2015. According to learned AAG this FIR has already been challaned before the concerned Court. It also appears from the record that thereafter the present petitioner has filed an application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. before the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace, Hyderabad being Cr . Misc. Application No 2704/2016, which was dismissed vide order dated 05.12.2016.
5. During the course of arguments, we have asked the question from the learned counsel for the petitioner whether Cr. Misc. Application No.2704/2016 filed by the petitioner was with regard to same incident for which the aforementioned FIR bearing Crime No.93/2015 of PS Cantonment Hyderabad has already been registered? he answered in affirmative. We have also asked from the learned counsel for the petitioner that how second FIR in respect of the same incident, under the circumstances of the case, can be permitted to be registered against the private respondents? He submits that under the law second FIR with regard to same incident can be registered.
We are not impressed with the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that in the recent case law reported as Sughran Bibi v. The State (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 595), it has been observed that after entering the first information relating to commission of a cognizable offence in the prescribed book, i.e. after registration of an FIR the matter became a "case", and thereafter every step taken in the ensuing investigation was a step taken in that case and second FIR was not allowed in the cited case. Since the case and claim of the petitioner seeking registration of second FIR with regard to an incident of which an FIR has already been registered, is not tenable in view of the cited case law, therefore, this petition having no merit is dismissed along with the pending application(s).
16. Of fice is directed to immediately send a copy of this order to the trial Court for information.