Pakistan Case Law
1993 P Cr. L J 1286

GAMAN vs S.H.O. DATAR DINO, POLICE STATION NEW FOUJDARI, SHIKARPUR

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1993 P Cr. L J 1286
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Constitutional Petition No,295 and C.MA. 826 of 1992
Date1993-02-24
Judge(s)Salahuddin Mirza and Kamal Mansur Alam
Authored bySalahuddin Mirza
ResultPetition allowed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This constitutional matter came before the Sindh High Court through a petition filed by Gaman seeking a direction for the registration of a First Information Report (F.I.R.) regarding an incident that occurred outside the court premises in Shikarpur, resulting in the murder of one Pathan and injuries to Ali Sher. The core legal question was whether a fresh F.I.R. could be registered for the initial murderous attack when an existing F.I.R. (No. 54 of 1992) lodged by the police only covered the subsequent exchange of fire between the rival groups and the police upon their arrival. The court held that since the existing F.I.R. did not detail the prior incident involving the death and injuries, the petitioner was entitled to have his version recorded. The court accordingly dismissed the application as having become infructuous in its initial procedural posture while directing the respondent S.H.O. to record the F.I.R. concerning the earlier incident, laying down the principle that a separate F.I.R. is warranted for a distinct prior transaction not covered by an existing police report.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether a separate First Information Report can be registered for an earlier incident when an existing F.I.R. lodged by the police only covers subsequent events?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to the registration of an F.I.R. regarding a cognizable offense when the police refuse to record it?
  • Whether an application seeking the registration of an F.I.R. should be granted if the initial grievance is addressed during the proceedings?
First Information Reportregistration of FIRconstitutional petitioncriminal procedureSindh High Court

ORDER

' SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, J.--- This application has become infructuous and is dismissed.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that he alongwith one Gul Muhammad, Jiand, Ali Sher and Pathan came to the Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, on 19-5-1992 in connection with Sessions Case No,54 of 84 and 30 of 1983. It is submitted that the petitioner, Gul Muhammad and Jiand were witnesses in the former case while Ali Sher in the latter and Pathan was the Nekmard who accompanied them to watch the proceedings of these cases. On reaching the gate of the Court, they were rued upon by certain persons belonging to the other party. As a result of this Pathan died and Ali Sher was injured. After this incident the police arrived at the place and fire was exchanged between the two groups and the police, in respect of which F.I.R. No,54/92 at New Foujdari Police Station, Shikarpur was lodged by the S.H.O. On 19-5-1992. It is alleged that when the petitioner approached the S.H.O. For lodging the F.I.R. It was refused. The learned AA.-G. States that as there is already an F.I.R. No,54/92 concerning the incident there is no necessity of registering another F.I.R.

The contention of the petitioner's counsel in this regard is that F.I.R. No,54/92 registered by the police relates to the event which took place after the murder of the deceased Pathan and injury to Ali Sher as it narrates that part of event which occurred after the police had reached the place of occurrence. With regard to the incident which accrued before the police .Reached the scene which resulted in death of a person and serious injuries to another, there are no details in the registered F.I.R. And therefore, the petitioner is entitled to lodge the F.I.R. In respect of that incident. We are, therefore, of the view that the F.I.R. Of the applicant Gaman should be registered in respect of the earlier incident in which Pathan had died and Ali Sher was injured. We accordingly direct respondent No,1 to record the F.I.R.

Cited by 4 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.