ABDUL GHANI vs S. H. O., P. S. SADDAR, SHEIKHUPURA AND OTHERS -

This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with Article 9 of the Provisional Constitu--tion Order, 1981 seeks the issue of a direction to respondent No. 1, S. H. O. Police Station Saddar, Sheikhupura to register a case against the accused-persons the statement of the petitioner as required by section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter to conduct the investigation in accordance with law.

2. The controversy revolves around the death of one Mahmood Ahmad son of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner has asserted in this petition that Mahmood Ahmad aged about 30 years was murdered by certain persons on 21st August, 1981; that the petitioner was in his village Malho on 22nd August, 1981. When he was informed that the dead body of his son was lying in the mortuary at Sheikhupura for post-mortem ; that the petitioner proceeded to the mortuary where he was informed by one Falak Sher that Mahmood Ahmad had been killed by Muhammad Husain, Bashir, Abdul Ghafoor and Munawar Husain residents of village Ghang which occur--rence was seen apart from Falak Sher by Nafees Ahmad and Anwarul Haq residents of the same village ; and that the petitioner was informed that the aforesaid four persons had caught hold of Mahmood Ahmad, taken him to a Haveli where injuries were inflicted on him as a result of which he died.

4. The motive of this occurrence has been asserted to be the revenge of the murder of a close relation of the accused-persons, namely, Haider by a close-relative of the petitioner.

5. It is also alleged that the aforesaid four persons who allegedly committed the murder, in collusion with the local Police got a report lodged without disclosing the true facts and contrarily asserting that the son of the petitioner was killed when he entered the house of one of them to commit theft of goats ; the efforts made by the petitioner for having a case registered through the Superintendent of Police, Sheikhupura and the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Gujranwala Range, have also borne no fruit with the result that the petitioner is left with no other remedy but to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for a direction to the Police for registration of the case.

6. The respondent S. H. O. Police Station Saddar, Sheikhupura, has submitted his parawise comments dated 9th November, 1981. He has controverted the assertions made in the petition and further submitted that since an F. I. R. (F. I. R. No. 394 dated 22nd August, 1981) has already been registered under sections 14/6/79, Islamic Law, 307 P. P. C. And 13/20/65, Arms Ordinance pertaining to the occurrence and the petitioner and his other men have not appeared or joined the investigation and the version of the petitioner has been found to be false and frivolous there is no question of the registration .Of another F. I. R.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent S. H. O. Is under a legal obligation to record the statement of the petitioner under section 154, Cr. P. C. As it discloses information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence of the murder of his son and to conduct investigation into the allegations levelled as envisaged by law.

It is further contended that the registration of the F. I. R. Giving another version of the commission of some other offences would not in any manner empower the respondent to refuse registration of the case as regards the cognizable offence which is being brought to his notice through the information of the petitioner. The learned counsel emphasized on the word "offence" used in section 154, Cr. P. C. To contend that it is not synonymous with the word "occurrence" or the word "incident", and that if different offences as in the instant case, are being informed about to the respondent S. H. O. Then he is obliged in law to register the, cases on the information of every person who discloses as offence in regard to any transaction.

8. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that it is not every information about a cognizable offence which has to be reduced into writing and a case registered on the basis thereof if already the incident complained about has been brought to the notice of the Police Officer concerned who has registered a case pertaining thereto. It was argued that the counter- versions given by the parties cannot be made the basis for separate registration of cases pertaining to the same occurrence.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in support of his contention that an F. I. R.

Should be registered on the information of the petitioner notwithstanding the registration of a case earlier which is for different offences, on :-

(1) Akram Ali Shah v. Station House Officer, Police Station Kolwali, Kasur and 2 others PLD 1979 Lab.

320.

(2) Mirza v. S. H. O. Police Station Chuharkana 1982 P Cr. L J 171.

(3) Abdul Ghani v. S. H. O. Etc. I. C. A. No. 64 of 1981.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on :-

(1) Muhammad ljaz v. The S. H. O. Police Station Rajana, Faisalabad 1979 SCMR 490.

(2) Ch. Shah Muhammad v. S. H. O. Rahimyar Khan and 2 others 1977 P Cr. L J 2.

(3)Malik Muhammad Aslam v. S. H. O. Police Station Saddar, Sargodha etc. PLD 1981 Lab. 138.

(4) Muhammad Aslam v. Station House Officer, Police Station Mamun Kanjan, Faisalabad PLD 1980 Lab. 116. to submit that no separate case need be registered through another F. I. R. As the truth of the matter can be ascertained by investigation of the F. I. R. Already registered.

11. Having given consideration to the controversy involved I am of the view that in the attendant circumstances of the case in hand the respondent S.H.O. Is under a statutory duty to reduce into writing the information given to him by the petitioner of the commission of cognizable offence as provided by section 154, Cr. P. C. If in the course of investigation he comes to the conclusion that the information given by the petitioner is false he can have recourse to the cancellation of the said F. I. R. In accordance with law but it cannot be said that his refusal to record the cross-version and to register the case is in accordance with law. It may well be that the occurrence reported about is the same but then there are two cross-versions of the occurrence and not two different versions of the same occurrence. The version on the basis of which the F. I. R. Has already been registered is distinct, i.e. The alleged trespass of the deceased into the house of the complainant and the resultant death of the deceased which according to the version occurred on account of self- defence and in furtherance of protection of property, whereas the version given by the petitioner is totally on a different premises that his son the deceased was caught hold of, taken to the Haveli and murdered by the four persons named in the petition.

12. In the context of the above position it appears that the reason--dent is under statutory obligation to register the case and proceed with the investigation in accordance with law.

13. In view of the above discussion this writ petition is accepted and it is directed that the respondent S. H. O. Shall register a case in accordance with section 154, Cr. P. C. On the information being given to him by the petitioner of a cognizable offence and investigate that B version.

Needless to mention that if on investigation the respondent arrives at the conclusion that the information given by the petitioner is false or incorrect, he can proceed in accordance with law for cancellation of the case.

There will, however, be no order as to costs.