MALIK MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN Versus THE STATE AND 4 OTHERS

ORDER

This is a Constitutional Petition for issuing a direction to the police to register a case at the instance of Malik Muhammad Anwar Khan, petitioner.

2. According to the petitioner on 30‑11‑1987 Sunwar Shah a candidate for the seat of councillor from Ward No. 12 came out of the polling station at about 12 noon and with the help of Major Zafar son of Sikandar Shah and Younis Shah etc. manhandled a police man and some voters causing injuries to Muhammad Khan son of Shah. Wah, Abdul Majid son of Muhammad Siddique Khan and Muhammad Younis son of Muhammad Khan. The petitioner submitted an application to Officer Incharge, Police Post Padrar for the registration of a case but to no avail. Eventually he moved the D.I.‑G., Sargodha Range who ordered for the registration of case on 8‑12‑1987 but without any result. On the other hand, case F.I.R. No. 117, dated 1‑12‑1987 was registered on the report of Saunwar Shah at P.S. Katha Saghral for causing injuries to Zafar lqbal, Ijaz Ahmad, Abdul Quddos Shah, Sikandar Shah and Sikandar Khan against 26 persons including Malik Muhammad Anwar Khan petitioner. In the said case an apprehension was shown about some persons of the petitioner's side receiving brick‑bat injuries during the occurrence.

3. A report was called from the S.H.O. concerned through D.I.‑G., Sargodha. According to him, the local police had already taken cognizance of the matter by recording a report in the daily diary of P. S. Katha Saghral with an undertaking that a fair investigation would be carried out and to challan the complainant party as well if found guilty. The S.H.O. has also submitted a detailed report in this behalf. According to him, the petitioner had neither himself appeared before him nor produced any of the injured before him.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Advocate‑General, Punjab. The learned Advocate‑General has opposed the registration of the second case at the instance of the petitioner. According to him the petitioner should have approached the I.‑G. Police if the local police had failed to comply with his orders. He adds that the petitioner can file a private complaint in the Court which can also order investigation under section 202, Cr.P.C. and there is nothing which a Magistrate cannot do. He has cited ‑some precedents against the registration of second case involving counter‑version.

5. As regard the desirability of the registration of a fresh case in respect of an occurrence regarding which a case stands already registered. Kaura v. The State and others 1983 S C M R 436 may be cited where it was observed that it was not called for notwithstanding the divergent version contained therein because the police was not only competent but also duty bound to unearth the true facts and trace the real culprits. Jamshed Ahmad v. Muhammad Akram Khan and another 1975 S C M R 149 is also to the same effect. In Mushtaq Ahmad v . S . H . O. P . S . Manawan 1984 P Cr. L J 1454 it was held that no case could be registered giving counter‑version by the accused party when do F.I.R. had already been registered in respect of an occurrence. It was further held that tiling of the complaint was an alternate remedy available to the appellant. In Mst. Bashiran Bibi v. S.H.O. P.S. Shorkot and another P L D 1978 Lah. 1325, it was held that remedy by filing a complaint directly before the Magistrate was more effective and efficacious because even if the case was registered investigation would remain in the hands of the opponents of the complainant including a prejudiced police officer while the trial of the prosecution through a preliminary inquiry by a Magistrate would remain in the hands of the complainant and the counsel ,conducting the case.

In the circumstances discussed above, I do not feel persuaded to interfere in the matter at this stage but would direct the police to carry out the investigation faithfully, record statements of the petitioner and the injured persons and to receive their medico‑legal certificates. They are further directed to proceed strictly in accordance with law and place correct version before the Court by bringing to book all those who are found to have participated in the occurrence. If the petitioner feels dissatisfied with the role of the police he may resort to an appropriate remedy in the Court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with law by filing a complaint which by no means is less efficacious remedy than the registration of case with the police.

With the above observations the petition is dismissed.

M. Y . H . /M‑646/L Petition dismissed.