SABIN BIBI Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER

ORDER

IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, J .---The petitioner through the instant petition seeks registration of second F.I.R. against respondents Nos. 2 to 8.

2. Brief facts of the case as alleged in the petition are that Mst.Jannat Bibi widow of Noor Muhammad was first cousin (Chacha-zad) of the petitioner; that she was issueless; that she was owner of 67 Kanals, 12 Marlas of land in the village and that Ahmad Yar respondent No.2 on the pretext of obtaining agricultural loan in connivance of his brother got executed general power of attorney by Mst. Jannat Bibi in his favour. It is further alleged that on 14-11-2006 Ahmad Yar respondent with the connivance of respondents Nos. 3 to 8 murdered Mst. Jannat Bibi and himself became the complainant and lodged F.I.R. No.376 dated 14-11-2006 under section 302/34, P.P.C. at Police station Shah Kot Chichawatni. The petitioner and her two real sisters are legal heirs of the deceased Jannat Bibi. The petitioner approached respondent No.1/concerned police station and stated that Ahmad Yar etc./respondents Nos. 2 to 8 have murdered Mst. Jannat Bibi in order to grab her property but the S.H.O./respondent No.1 refused to record the statement of the petitioner against Ahmad Yar respondent/complainant of F.I.R. No.376 of 2006. Consequently the petitioner filed a petition under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. before the learned Justice of Peace/Addl. Sessions Judge Chichawatni for registration of second F.I.R. against respondents Nos. 2 to 7. The learned Justice of Peace called for the continents from respondent No.1/S.H.O. Police Station Shah Kot, Tehsil Chichawatni, District Sahiwal who submitted in his comments as under:--

It is submitted that in spite of comments filed by the Investigating Officer., the learned Justice of Peace did not order registration of a second F.I.R. according to the version of the petitioner rather vide order dated 6-12-2006 he directed respondent No.1 to record statement of the petitioner in the registered case and proceed strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking setting aside of order dated 6-12-2006 and direction to respondent No.1 to register a second F.I.R. according to the version of the petitioner. It has been further stated that after the murder of Mst. Jannat Bibi, respondent No.2 got a suit instituted by his brother Shahmand Ali for specific performance in which it was stated that the plaintiff had paid Rs.19,00,000 to Ahmad Yar defendant/respondent for the purchase of land of Mst. Jannat Bibi/defendant No.2 on the basis of the general power of attorney in his favour. It is submitted that in the said suit Mst. Jannat Bibi was shown alive and notices were also served at her address. Relying upon the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mst. Anwar Begum v. Station House Officer, Police Station Kalri West, Karachi and 12 others PLD 2005 SC 297 and Mrs. Ghanwa Bhutto and another v. Government of Sindh and another PLD 1997 Kar. 119 the petitioner prays for registration of a second F.I.R.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the petitioner had filed a petition under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. after about 14 days with mala fide intention of getting the property of the deceased mutated; that Ahmad Yar respondent was the adopted son of the deceased who was given general power of attorney with regard to the land; that the F.I.R. had been promptly registered based on true facts of the occurrence; that the story cooked up by the petitioner in connivance with the local police is an afterthought and that even if the petitioner wants to get the case in investigated on her statement, her version can validly be recorded as directed the learned Justice of Peace in the investigation of the existing F.I.R.

4. Although the Courts of law normally use restraint to exercise discretionary powers under Article 199 of the Constitution to order registration of a second F.I.R. in presence of the alternate remedies such as filing of a private complaint or recording of version of the aggrieved party through statement during the course of investigation of the existing F.I.R., yet no hard and fast rule exists that a second F.I.R. cannot be registered in respect of a different version given by an aggrieved party of the same occurrence if it is not merely an extension to the first version. At the same time while exercising constitutional jurisdiction the High Court is not obliged to hold fact-finding inquiry yet the jurisdiction can be exercised in good faith, fairly, justly and reasonably having regard to all relevant circumstance's. In this regard I am fortified by the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mst. Anwar Begum v. Station House Officer, Police Station Kalri West, Karachi and 12 others PLD 2005 SC 297 and Mrs. Ghanwa Bhutto and another v. Government of Sindh and another PLD 1997 Kar. 119.

5. It is not denied that the petitioner is first cousin of Mst. Jannat Bibi and along with her sisters is her legal heir. The petitioner has been alleging that Ahmad Yar respondent obtained power of attorney from the deceased on the pretext of obtaining agricultural loan and thereafter in connivance with respondents Nos. 3 to 8 had murdered Mst. Jannat Bibi in order to grab her land and evasively himself became the complainant. The stance of the petitioner is further fortified by the fact that one Shahamand Ali a real brother of Ahmad Yar respondent filed a suit for specific performance in the Court of learned Civil Judge Chichawatni on 23-11-2006 in which Mst. Jannat Bibi deceased was also arrayed as defendant No.2. It may be noted that Shahamand Ali plaintiff did not disclose in the plaint that he was real brother of Ahmad Yar defendant similarly it is impossible in view of the fact that the plaintiff and the defendants were residents of the same village that the plaintiff did not know that Mst. Jannat Bibi defendant was no more in the world at the time of institution of the plaint and had been murdered. Further more the comments filed by the respondent-S.H.O. also support the version of the petitioner. All these circumstances lead this Court to draw an inference that the version of respondent No.1 does not seem to be whole truth and there is substance in the version of the petitioner. Although the learned Justice of Peace had directed the respondent-S.H.O. to record the statement of the petitioner in the registered case and proceed strictly in accordance with law, but in the given circumstances, I do not find the same sufficient to redress the grievance of the petitioner.

6. For the foregoing reasons I find that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for registration of second F.I.R. Resultantly this petition is allowed and respondent No.1 is directed to perform his legal obligation and register the second F.I.R. on the statement of the petitioner and proceed strictly in accordance with law.

H.B.T./S-26/L Petition allowed.