MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus HAJI AHMAD BHATTI

An F. I. R. No. 144 was registered at Police Station, Lalamusa on 18 th June, 1979 at the instance of one Dr. Haji Ahmad Bhatti, relating to an incident alleged to have happened at 6 p.m. on the same date, in which the petitioner and his two sons Muhammad Shafiq and Abdul Waheed are accused of offences under section 382/452/34, P. P. C.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that Muhammad Shafiq also reported the matter to the concerned police on 18th June, 1979 giving his version of the incident and has argued that it was the duty of the Police under section 154, Cr. P. C., to register an F. I. R. on behalf of Muhammad Shafiq and since the Police has not registered any case, therefore, they have failed to exercise their jurisdiction vested in them under the law. The failure of the Police has been challenged in this writ petition and a direction is sought for the registration of a cast by the police at the instance of Muhammad Shafiq.

3. According to the police officers appearing today, the investigation against the petitioner and others has been completed and the challan is ready to be submitted. I have gone through the police papers. A report made by Muhammad Shafiq is on the police file which indicates that he also informed the police about the incident at about the same time stating his version of the case. The Police has also placed on the file a medical certificate of Muhammad Shafiq who is alleged to have been injured in the incident. The Police has not believed the version of the petitioner and his sons and has proposed to send up the challan against them. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, insisted that in any case the Police should have registered a case at the instance of Muhammad Shafiq who had given his version of the occurrence.

4. I am afraid, the argument put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force because under section 154, Cr. P. C. it is only once that a case is to be registered on the information of any person. In this case, an F. I. R. was already registered before the information was conveyed by Muhammad Shafiq relating to the same occurrence. There cannot be two F. I. Rs. relating to the same incident particularly when the information qua the offence has been already recorded by the police at the instance of any other person. If any statement is recorded that shall be a statement under section 161, Cr. P. C., during the investigation of the case. The information having already been lodged with the Police, the Police has rightly registered the case under section 154, Cr. P. C., at the instance of Dr. Haji Ahma6 Bhatti and has investigated the case and their failure to record another F. I. R. in respect of the same occurrence is neither illegal nor without any lawful authority. It is also within the province of the police during the investigation to find out the truth or otherwise of the versions put forward by the complainant as well as the defence. It ha already been held in Muhammad Aslam v. Station House Officer, Police Station, Mamun Kanjan, Faisalabad (P L D 1980 Lah. 116); Akram Ali Shah v. S. H. O. Police Station, Kotwali (P L D 1979 Lah. 320) and Ghulam Siddique v. S. H. O. Saddar (P L D 1979 Lah.263) that in case an F. I. R. has already been registered and different version with regard to the same incident is reported, the police cannot be com mended to register as many F. I. Rs. as there are versions to it. It will be for the petitioner to take up his case either by a complainant or prove their version during the trial. In the present case, whatever arguments are put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the version of the accuse6 persons in the case. In the first instance, the accused can prove their version during the investigation and if the Police does not believe their version and sends up the case for trial, the accused persons have another opportunity to prove their version during the trial. In the circumstances of the present case, it was not necessary for the police to record another F. I. R. relating to the same offence as the information disclosing cogni zable offence was already made to the Police.

5. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.