SAWAN Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICE

ORDER

This order shall dispose of Criminal miscellaneous No. 816-M/1974 and Writ Petition No. 321/1975. The petitioner in these two petitions is the same person, namely, Sawant. The prayer contained in these two petitions is that a case be registered against the accused named by the petitioner in connection with an occurrence which took place on 18th of September 1974, in which Amrat a brother of the petitioner lost his life. On the other side, three persons, namely, Shafi, Ghulam Nabi and their father Barkat lost their lives.

2. The dispute in this case arose over the possession of Khasra No. 1618 which Barkat, one of the deceased persons named above, had purchased some time earlier. The first information report in this case was lodged by Rafi son of Barkat, deceased. It was stated therein that the three deceased persons along with others were present in their field when Amrat deceased and his other companions attacked them. Barkat, Shafi and Ghulam Nabi met their death by the gunshots fired by the other party. It was further stated that Amrat was done to death by his own companions who left the spot after the commission of the offence.

3. Two petitions were moved before this Court for registration of a case on the basis of the version of the petitioner. I passed orders on 3rd of October 1974 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 816-M of 1974 asking the S. S. P., Lahore to look into the matter personally and submit a report. In response to this direction, a report was submitted by Muhammad Nazir S. H. O., Saddar Kasur, stating that according to the investigation of the police, the petitioner and his companions were the aggressors and the other side bad lost three lives. Muhammad Nazir S. H. O. appeared before me and said that he had entered the version of the petitioner in his roznamcha, but had not registered a separate case as the higher officers of the police including the D. I. G. of the Lahore Range had agreed that the counter version canvassed by the petitioner should not be registered in view of the investigation already made by the police. Muhammad Nazir had appeared before Mr. Justice M. S. H. Qureshi on 4th of February 1975, and had during the hearing of Criminal Miscellaneous No 4942-B of 1974 given an undertaking that if the complainant approached him for lodging a report it shall be entertained according to law.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in deference to the undertaking given by Muhammad Nazir S. H. O. he should have registered a separate case. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the report sent to this Court that the paddy field measuring four kanals twelve marlas which was the bone of contention in this case was in possession of Rehmat accused. It is further pointed out that the reporting officer i.e. the S. H. O. had himself said that even if Barkat had purchased this land, he should not have ploughed it without obtaining possession thereof according to law. It is, therefore, his case that the version given by the petitioner is not without substance and the police should be called upon to register a case and make investigation therein.

5. The learned Advocate-General, submits that according to the latest entries in the revenue records some other persons were shown as owners of the land in dispute and it was purchased by Barkat deceased from the persons entered as owners thereof. It is his contention that the allegation that the occurrence took place in field No. 1618 is not correct because the three dead bodies were found lying in some other fields and the dead body of Amrat, the brother of the petitioner was found in Khasra No. 1617 which is at some distance from the Khasra number in dispute.

6. The basic question of law involved in this case is whether the police can refuse to register a case on the basis of the counter version given on behalf of the accused party on the ground that they consider that version to be false. The learned Advocate-General submits that the police has investigated the two versions and having come to the conclusion that the version given by the petitioner is false, they are not called upon to register a separate case. I have questioned the Investigating Officer and he says that the accused have so far not appeared before him to adduce any evidence in support of their version.

7. The provisions of section 154, Cr. P. C. are imperative in nature. The information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence has to be reduced by the S. H. O. into writing and investigation has to be conducted therein. The version given by the complainant party only describes their side of the case as to how the offence was committed. The petitioner no insists that this version is not correct and that his side of the case should be investigated according to law. Of course, it is open to him to file a complaint but the learned counsel for the petitioner insists that it is his right to demand that the police should do their duty and investigate his side of the case. The report of the police officer shows that Khasra No. 1618, which is said to have been ploughed by Barkat deceased along with his companions, was in possession of the accused party. Whether they were the owners or not has no bearing for the time being. The facts will become more clear during the recording of the evidence.

8. In my view, the correct legal procedure for the police should have been to record the F. I. R. containing the counter version and to have investigated it. If they found that the evidence adduced by the petitioner did not sustain the charge they could have submitted a report to the Magistrate for cancellation of the case. It was held by the learned Chief Justice in Ch. Ataullah v. Ch. Mumtaz Ahmad Kahlaon and 3 others (11973PCr.L169) that even if police have made investigation in a case with reference to the particular evidence produced by one party another report with reference to the same incident is not barred. I respectfully follow this dictum. I also sa with great respect that the language of section 154, Cr. P. C. is imperative and a police officer cannot dub the counter version as false without first investigating the matter. His duty is to make investigation. I, therefore, allow both the petitions and direct the S. H. O. to register a report at the instance of Sawant petitioner and to make investigation therein according to law.

K. B.A. Petitions allowed.