JAVED Versus State
ORDER
MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.--- Briefly the facts of the case are that regarding an occurrence, FIR No.116/2018 dated 30.03.2018 under sections 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 186, 148, 149, P.P.C. was registered at Police Station City Nankana Sahib on the complaint of Abdul Rehman Shaheen (respondent No.7) against the present petitioner and some others. Since the petitioner had another story regarding the same occurrence, therefore, he filed an application under sections 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C. before the learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace, the same was disposed of vide order dated 03.05.2018 with a direction to the Investigating Officer of the said FIR to proceed on the application of the petitioner if cross-version attracts in the case or not. Through the instant writ petition the petitioner voiced a grievance that despite order by the learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace, his cross-version was not being recorded.
2. On 27.09.2018 District Police Officer and S.P (Investigation) were directed to appear before this court in person along with Investigating Officer on 28.09.2018. On 28.09.2018 the court was apprised that cross-version of the petitioner had been recorded. On perusal of the police file this court observed that statement of petitioner was not recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. and further his statement was also not incorporated in RAPT ROZNAMCHA and statements of his witnesses and the site plan in the light of statement of the witnesses of cross-examination was not prepared, which is against the requirement of law and if the Investigating Agency adopted this way of recording cross-version then the complainant of cross-version will miss out his basic rights and it will frustrate the requirement of law in the light of case "Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State" (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 595). The DPO as well as other police officers also could not come out with any explanation; as such the Additional Inspector General Police was directed to appear in person and he was apprised about the situation and relevant provisions of law, especially the police rules as guidance for recording of cross-versions and its investigation. He was also directed to prepare SOP with the consultation of all stakeholders and issue the same for guidance of police officials investigating the cross-versions to avoid any complication to the public at large.
3. Today, the court has been informed that SOP (Standard Operating Procedures) No.30200/Inv/HA/L dated 19.10.2018 has been issued with regard to recording of cross-versions, a copy whereof has been placed before the Court. An extract of the same is reproduced hereunder:-
On court query the police officers present in court inform that now the cross-version of the present petitioner has been recorded to bring the same in line with the requirement of law and the police rules. This being the position the grievance of the petitioner stands redress and this petition is disposed of accordingly.
4. It has been observed that in the above referred SOP a comprehensive mechanism has been laid down but from the covering letter of the SOP it appears that although the same was addressed to the heads/Incharge of the concerned branches of the police department, but the same do not appear to have been routed to the bottom i.e. to the SHOs or the Investigating Officers. Similarly, the SOP also does not appear to have been circulated for public awareness or to the legal fraternity. The Inspector General of Police Punjab is directed to ensure that above referred SOP shall be communicated to the SHOs who shall onward see that the SOP must be complied with in letter and spirit by the Investigating Officer. At the same time, the Inspector General of Police Punjab shall ensure that copy of this SOP must be transmitted to all the Tehsil and District Bar Associations of Punjab for information.
SA/J-8/L Order accordingly.