Muhammad Hussain (Petitioner) VS Distt Session Judge Mpk & others (Respondent)

6qL

ORDER SHEBT

rN fTInE Hrcrr copBT OF SINDH, ctncutt count HYDERABAD Present

Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto Y Mr. Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha

C.P. No.D- 1973 of 2016

Muhammad Flussain

Versus

District & Sessions Judge, Mirpurkhas ancl others Petitioner Muhammad Through M/s SYe d l{aicler Imam Rizvt Hussain and Abdul Rauf, Advocal-es

Respondents No. 1 and 2 Through SYed I\4eera Shah Brrl<hari, Deputy Prosecutor General

Respondents No.3 to 11 Through Mr Abdul Aziz Memon, Advocate

Date of hearing 09.o5.2017

Date of judgment 19.o5.2017

o RDDR

MOHAMMAD KARIM KHAN AGHA ,J.-Through instant constitutional petition, petitioner Muhammad I{ussairt Itr-t:r passecl by impugned the orders dated 04'05'2016 and 23'04'2016' of.Perr-ce) itr IG learned Sessions Judge, Mirpurkhas (trx officio Jusl-ice under sectiott 2"'l ( Cr. Misc. A. Nos.26 I l2016 and' 233/2O16 (moved troth the A-6(i) Cr.P.C.), whereby the Sessions Judge dismissecl I-Ietrce' the l. aforementioned applications (the impugned orders)' instant petition.

h*

2\s

2.The facts of the petitioner's case as 'r16tetl irr llre irrstatr{ petition are that the petitioner was Kamdar'/l,eutcl Martager of Msl .

Fiza Junejo. His duty was to look after the land of Mst. Fiza .lu,neio and her four other sisters. There:,is a famil.Y dispute between Mst Fiza Junejo and her other sisters with her/their brothel' Asacl Junejo over distribution of their ancestral land. That clue 1.o ttrc -/ harsh and threatening behaviour of her brother, Mst lliza. .ltttteirr moved an application before the Inspector Getteral of lrolice aurl Deputy Inspector General of Police, Mirpurkhas, conveying her apprehension that the goons of her brother are plattnin6l to cause harm to her, her four sisters and their employerls', htll no acl.iott r,vitrr taken.

3.That on 20.O4.2016 at about, 1l;OO hottt.s rryltetr l.lre pelilir,rrrnr was present on the aforesaid land, he was intercepted Lr.y pliva.lc respondents No.3 to 11"; who came there in one Vigo Pickup No.500 and two Corolla cars. All respondents were arrned witl cleadly weapons. They caught hold of the petitioner and started bea.ting him in front of the people present there. The saicl resporrclerrlrr severely beat and manhandled the petitioner, cut off his eyel:ro.vs, his hair and moustache; took hirn,away by putting hirn inter said Vigo pickup, brought him at the bungalow of respondent No.'l Ghalib Junejo and tortured him, due to which the petil.ioner' sustained factures over his nose, l<nee ancJ other bocly pal ls Subsequently, the said accused / r'esponclertts lrancled orrct' lhr- custody of the petitioner to SHO Police Station llin.cltrri; r,vherr brother of the petitioner namely, Muhammad Umar caffte to ktl<,u' about.,the paid illegal acts of the respondents, he approacltcrl ttrc Sessions Judge,.Mirpurkhas and filecl an application rrnder ser:tion 481 Cr.P.C. Th{learned Sessions Judge ordered to conduct a rairl

IG

t for the.""or"JI of the detenue, which was corttl)liecl wiilr arrr.l ,* 4 according to the\petitioner the report of the Raicl Comrtrissiott':r o -4 roveS that the petitioner was kidnapped arrd l.ortrrrecl lrv tlle ? private respondents. Thus the brother of the petitioner: approzlctrcrl H the police station for filing F.I.R against the culprits but tlte pcrlirre refused to register the same,

Y

gqq

4' Thereafter the brother of the petitioner' ntoriecl att alrpl'ir-al'irrrr under section 22-A Cr.P.C. seeking direction li'rlrn lbe q-',r1,11 [ rrl sessions Judge Mirpurkhas to lodge aII F.l.R. based nn lhe al,t'rvc narrated. facts which was declined vide order dated 2:\-04-20 |h willr an advice to the applicant to file a direct complaint.'1'herealter', l-lrc t' petitioner himself filed an application seeking similar reliel', .,llll(' however, the same was also disrnissed vide order rlated 04-Oli as it was deemed to be a review of the earlier orcier whicl I was trol permissible. Hence the petitioner has moved this court. for reliel'.

5.Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that" the learnecl sessions Judge / Ex-officio Justice of Peace tras Passed thr- impugned orders in contravention of law; that 1]:re learned l|inl court has erred by not appreciating the fact l-hal. ertor.rgtr tnale|i:rI i:r available in shape of Raid Report and photographs of ttte inqrtirv and excess caused by the culprits for giving dit'ecti,orr to the lxrlir:c for lodging an F.LR.; that the learled sessiols Jtrclge / Ilx-olllcirr Justice of Peace has grqssly erred in not apprecia.ting that when a complainant approaches the police for registerirtg an IIIR I'ot ir cognizable offence then ihe police is legally bountl to I'eg,ister l.hc FIR. Similarly the Ex-officio Justice of Peace has a legal duty ttr direct the police for the registration of an FIR when a. r:ogrtrzalrlcr offence is spelt out from the contents of the allegations: thnt tlre learned Ex Officio Justice of Peace has arbitr:arily failecl l-o exet-r-isc his jurisdiction under section 22-A(6]lCr"P.C" alttrorrgh hr- rva.s firlll' conversant with the facts of the allegations a.s he h.arl hit:rrs<:ll ordered for the raid and the raid report clearly suggests the commission of cognizable offence punishable Under sections 1165, 342,397-L(ii), 337-V(ii), 337-F(iii), 504, 506(ii), l4'7, l4B. lz{a l.}l)tr' that the learned Ex Officio Justice of Peace wtrile passing tlre impugned order has erred in law ancl exceeded tris irrrisclicl.j('rr to hold that the petitioner should instead file a prival-e t:orrJrli-rittl; t.hat IG the F.I.R that has been filed against'him is false and has heeu trtatle with a view to defeating the lodging of his orvn IfIR whictr is haserl d.i n the truth; that the learned Ex officio Jr-rsl-ice of Pear:e <1i<1 trot apply his judicial rnind and arlived at an erroneotls cortchtrqiott. attcl has failed to appreciate that the Flonourable Supl"err-re (lorrrl attrl llr'-

gq\ tl

High Courts have directed for registering a seconrl / r:orrrrter tf l^l-i. in the event of different and conflicting sl.orics couplecl rvitlr allegation of mala fide of police is averred by the r:onrplainarrl, ltrrrr the impugned orders are perverse in law and agairrst rJre pritrcilles of law as laid down by the superior t.orrrts arrtl llrrrs shorrlrl l'- struck down and the concernecl SHO direct.ecl l.o loclge his IrlR.

.Y

6.In support of his contentions, learned crrr.rusel lor l.lrr- petitioner has relied upon the cases of Ali Muhammatl v. Syed llibi (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 484), Mushtaq Hussain v. State (;JOtt SCMR 45), Muhammad Bashlr v. Statlon Ilouse Olficer (.[,Ll ) 2OO7 Supreme Court 539), Ghanwa Bhutto v. Government of Sindh (PLD lggT Karachi 1i9), Inayatullah Khilii rz. lst Addltional District and Sessions Judge (?,o(t'i I)(.'r'.1^l rto(r), Mumtaz All v, S.H.O. Naushahro Feroz (2}ll PCr.L^l 268) ar-rrl Wajid Ati Khan Duranl v. Government of Sindh (2OOl S('Mli 1ss6).

7.Learned counsel for private respolldellts No.l" l.o ll lr:rr, argued that this petition is not maintainable a.s l.lre petitioncr lr;-,rr,, an adequate alternate remedy as spelt out in the irnpugled orcler-s. Namely he can file a direct complaint; that there is alreacly arr l,'tl.' registered against the petitioner and as such there was rro rreecl for the registration of a second FIR arising out of the sa.me irlci<lelt. namely FIR 15/2016 dated 2O-O4-2O16 registered at PS Sindhli at 210ohrs by complainant Abid Ali wiiictr in effe<:l stnleri tltat. "l ttrrr residing at the aboue q.d.d.ress and. lookafter the lantt. o.l'Asari ii;rtlri.lt Junejo, todag at about 2:OO p.m. we were present qt th.e lanrl, i,rt l)tc mantime (1) Muhammad Hussain S/o l{andero .Iun.e.io tttil.h. pistol (2) Muhafiz Ali S/ o Sajro Junejo uith pistot who ca.nt.e on. ilt.e fimtorqjcle and started filthg language agairust us a.nd. also utarrrcr7. t.o ry> lrrtrrr

IG

the land othertuise ue will kill gou, Muha.m.rnnd llu.sst.in. ,tune:io t( readg to fire therefore he started -firing uhich tuas hitted t.o rn.1t lee o Lrcnce I felt down. Muhafiz Ali S/ o Sanjro Jun.ejo qlso intentiqlTl l.qr fi.r e for kilting, therefore afier fiittg botlt the accilserl lrerson q.bscond.ed, on thelr mtotorcgcle, there.fore we l.4fonned t:fue pollce and request to the SIIO o.;t the potlce stortlan oLncl lrtiured. \t lo

Bq6

person urc,s sent for medlcal treatment in. l:lt.e hosltl.l:al. (l rol,l added)

I therefore request to please lodge the F'IR again:;l: tlte r tortc: accused person for firing uith the inten-tion. 1.o lcill on the Moha-fiz Ali . "

8.That the aforesaid FIR is the true version of events a.rtcl lhal Y the petitioner is now trying to rnUddy l-l-re r,vtrl.et^alrrl txrlrltrsr: llrr' issue by attempting to file a second FIR in order to save his sl<irr. That the petitioner does not work for Ms Fiza June.io ancl is in lht:t ,r chowkidar of Government High School Sindhri an<l lhat etturitl, exists between the petitioner and respondents 3 to 11 rrvtriclr lrarr lead to him now wanting to file a false cotnplaitrl :rgaiusl lhr: respond.ents 3 to 11. That Abid Ali's F1l? is srtprot'ler] [r1r ilrC mashirnamas of arrest and recovery whereby the lretitiolrct' r'n';r:r arrested on the spot by the police on the lands of Asad..Iutte"io

9.Learned coUnsel fgr respondents No.3 to .[ l. lras rr:lierl rllrorr the case of Younas Abbas and others rr" Addltional Sessions Judge, Chakwal and others (PLD 20 16 Sr-rpreme Cor tll lllt l)

10.Learned Deputy Prosecutor General (DPG) subrnittecl l.hat itr his view the petition was maintainable and tha.t under the law rrtr FIR must be registered under S.154 Cr.PC if a copgrizable offense i:.-, made out. Learned DPG did uot support l.he impttgnecl ol'(lers passed by learned Sessions Judge ex officio.Justice oL lteace I 1. We have considered the argurnerrts of leirntetl tjolurri,)l perused the record and the case law cited by them at the hat'.

12.With regard to maintainabili(y we find that this cortrl-ir-r ilrr constitutional jurisdictioh has ample cliscretionary powel-c ltr entertain and determine this petition un<ler Artir:le l9t) (rI llre \{ IG H Constitution in a case such as this.

-l l{. :l 13. ln this respect reliance is placed on the supreme court cas<,' ol' o

wajtd Ali Khan Durani v. Government *rf sindh (2oo l s(lMli 1556) which concerned the registration of a l,ttit'rl lrlli irr rcrll-)e(:l ')f * l.l the same incident whilst dealing with the issr-re of tl re altertrzrte remedy of a direct complaint and the constjttttional it-tt'is<lir:liotr ol v,v

€q1 (r

T-ligh orxrrl irt 1l.r i:r the High Court upheld the decision o[ the Sirrcth of 3111<lfr regard in the case of Ghanwa Blrutto v' Governtnent (PLD IggT Karachi 119) and held as under at P' t558 "The learned High Court while dealing wittr the. questi.ott' agg'rievecl Pat ly whether alternate remedy was available to the to file direct tft" Court if thev ruere rtol' salirrlicrl with the police"r-prJ.,iii' report, held as under:--

. ,,A question therefore arises, lvhert catt clisrcreti"tr l'r' aggrieverl parly' lt exercised by the High Court in favour of an of,pia.e to lnention here that' according to tlte -^y rrot be out friicipf" laid down by the supgr-ior Conrts' rliscletiottaty ;;;;I;"st t. exer"i"La it' goocl lail.h havins regard r.I:rit.lll1' relevant considerati."" it lhoulct be exerr:ised 'irtstly' "'a and reasonatly. tte.efore, although an ltrc altertlale t'cttlecly irr provided to an rinclcr' l;rrv' l-r1 w'rlr {r{ "ggii"'"d-party Ir.p]"-, yet, the"'-m"." rrate remer.lY l*rl. f.it Lhat an alter(lotlt'l the llotrr r'.ivtrrl, ;;;; pto"ia"a ro., may not cletet' ai.*,il"" 1o *r"',poti""'t" recorcl a F'l"l{' itr r'rtt rtppt'r'P.irrlt' case."

(supra) this <:as(.

t4 with regard to the case of ,Yortnas Abbas .l

(fi)Ct"l)C' whi':lr primarily concerned the constitutionality of S'22' (A) was consi<'ler-ed (.

was found to be in line with the Constitution a.ncl

well olT people *r gcl be a good and inexpensive way of allowing ress FlR,sregisteredifsHo,srefusedtodosoatthebehesto[irrfluerrtia| of access trr justi<:e atrrl members of society- It enhanced the concept I wary debarrecl tlrc equality before the law. In our ,view it in tlo I

I

petitioner from approaching the High Court in il s crtrlstittltintr:rl I

tl:e decisiorr jurisdiction in respect of such matters' Even ot-hel-wise istrate in such cases was cleemed to be of a qrrasri

judicial nature which was subject to judicial review

HIG H

15.ln our view tlre real point at,issue cloes rrot prirrrarily .)' revtrlve

o f:

not under the facl's artd o around the impugned orders but whether or now be regislered"l'lris + circumstances of this case another FlR carr Seems to have rrnfolrlecl lrecar'tse l,1re is because the whole episode , t;\

I

gtt 2.

sHo of PS sindhri refused to takg the petitioltets slat'ernertl rtnr'l register an FIR in respect of his complaint which left tritn to pet'st'tc

the alternate avenue under S.22 (A) (6) Cr'PC wil.hot-tt sLrccess which lead to him moving this Court

Y 16.Sincethiscaserevolvesaroundtheabilityl-or'egist'eratrF.IR. ora2ndFIRS.l54Cr.PCwhichdealswiththisissrre'isSeltrttl below for ease of reference

"S. 154.Cr.PC. Information in coqniza'ble case's' Ihret l' information relating to the commission o['a cogfiizahle oflerrcc ifgivenorallytoanofficerinchargeofapolice'-station'rslrall be reduced to writing by him or under his directiort a'ntli,rrr. trrr irrlortrral read over to thel in"formant; ancl every srr<:lr rr:'r or reducecl to writirrg :rlorei::rirl ' whether given in "signea writing shall be by the-p.t"o" giving it' arttl the substa-rtr:tr thereof shall be entered in a book to be l<ept by strclr effll'nr irr irr

such form as the; r[Provincial Governmentl tnay presct'ibe this behalf."

17.There is a plethora of authority on the point thal' wltert r'r person approaches an officer in ch?rge ol a police station (PS) ar:rtl must wants to make a statement concerning a crirne t'hat stat'errtent concerned SHO/police officer at ttre PS in writitrli ()r''r and then entered as a cognizable qffense under 5'154 C)r'PC: noncognizableoffenseunderS'155Cr.PC.lnl"Jrist.espec('{,ltrl concerned police officer has no discretion' FIe rrrusl record ltrc:

or rr statement and must either record it as rl fl..l 54 stl:\lettetrl S.l55statement.Hisonlyrole.istodeterrrrirrewlret}rerlLlc-l olTense is statement discloses that a cognizable or non cognizable made out and place ,the statement itr tl-re appropriate |rooli

whereaftereitheranlOfromhisPSwillbeappoint'edtoirrvestigate the case if a cognizable offense is made out or it wlll be senl l-o fl

IG H

magistrate to deal with'in accordance with law if a non cogntzalllr'r

,L ((

o o ?, t

18.The concerned police officer has no lawfirl arrthotil:Y whatsoevertorefusetorecordaperson'sstatementinreslrr-'r--l of an alleged crlme.

Y^

B

19.In our view an informative anal.ysis of lhin legal ;rosiliorr i:, made in the case of Muhammed Bashir v State (t't,t ) il()()'/ tj( I I i. t, r) in the following terms at P.545 which is set ont as urrrler lor-errsc.t reference:

"9. Such an exercise o[ powel's lry the learrtt,l A.S.J under section 22-A (61 of the Cr.P.C. in suclr a lltantrcr raises some serious questions in onr rnirrcls, lLral i:r:

Y

(a)do the provisions of law repplat.ing l.tre l:ecorcl1lr11 ol F.I.Rs permit or evell envisage an enquiry ini,o tlr. correctness or otherwise of the inflormatiorr whiclr r:r received by an Officer Incharge of a Police Statiolr frrr thc purpose of being reduced into wtil.ing as a li'.[.li.i'

(b)does the law empower an Oflicer Lrcl-rarge of a Polic" Station to refuse to record an F.I.R" only bccatrse, irr lri:, opinion, the allegatiorls conveyed .l.o lrirrr rrr<.r'e lnlse) Arrrl.

(c)what is the proper scope of tlee l.rowers corrfnrro, I through the newly-added provisions of sectio:rr 22,-A(61 ^t' the Cr.P.C. and whether the saicl provisions conf'ellerl any new, extra or additional powel's on alr }t)x-o{tlci,' Justice of the Peace in the matl.er of recnrrlirrli ol'Iir-I.l:'-'."

10.The expression "REGISTIIAI'ION OIr A (IRIMINAI, CASE", used in section 22 A \6), Cjr.l'.(.). was alietr lo lrrrv r.c 'to the Code of Criminal Procedure ancl the l)olir;e ltrrles ol 1934 till the addition of the said subsectiorr (6) lrr the s;rirl sectiorr 22-A of the Cr.P.C., through the Ckrde o[ Crinrirral Procedure (Third Amendment) Ordiirance. No.(IXXXI o[ 2OO'.1 which was promulgated on\41-11-2OO2,. We sha,ll, however. presume that what was intendecl to I'c rrreaut Lr.y thc saitl expression was, in. fact, the recording of F.I.tl" We rr);ry illso add that even the expression "FIRSI'INFORMA'I'ION RllPOl.:T" (F.I.R.) was not an expressiorr o1'ttre (lo<Jc ol ('r'irrrirr;r! Procedure, iBgB but was in fact tlre narrrc givcrr to llrr' "INFORMATION" mentioned in sectiorr 154 of tlte Cr'.I)"(l. I,rt, Chapter XXIV of the Police Rules of 1934.

11.For some purposes, inclucling recordirrg nf l,'.l.lir. criminal offences have been categorisec.l by lhe Cr'.t).(-). rrr[r, two classes i.e. the ones which were cognizable errrcl lhe ollrerr. which were non-cognizable. Sectiorr I 54 ,:rf llrc ('r' l' {.1. prescribes the manner in which an infortuatirrlt t:ottrreycr.l lo n ,l' S.H.O. with respect to the comrnission of a cognizable ollcnt:c \\ IG was to be dealt with while the provisions of sectiott I lil,-,( l) ol the said Code tell us of the procedure envisaged vis-a-vis tlre o information relating to a non-cognizable ofl'enr,:c. "lhese o 't; provisions read as under:-

"154. Information in cogni.zablc cetse s Dvcry information . relating to the coftLtlrtrist(.)ll ol' ,t

I

9so

I

COGNIZABLE OFFENCII if given or-ally to s1,' ()[tir:r-r Incharge of a Police Station SFlnI,t. l.rc rr--rlrr<:orl lo qirrtiru'. by him or under his direction, arrcl lrc ;6.q.1 ovel'(o |,lr<. informant, and every such inforrxation, ',rrlte.l her. giverr irr writing or reduced to writing as albresrricl shall Lre sigrrr.', I by the person giving it; and tl-rc srrbstatl<re llrereol r,l'r;rll be entered in a bool< to be ke1.rt lry srtr--l r of.lir:er-in tr-rrlr form as the Provincial Goveulrter.rl tnay pr.esr:r'ilre irr llu:r

155.Infor n ln non-co able cases (l) Wltcr r

information is given to an O fficer Incharge of a l)o li r:e Station of the commission withir-r the linrit"s of srrcl'r station of a NON-COGNIZABLtr Ot'FIJNCll. he Sl.lAl,l, enter in a book to be kept as alol'esaid 1[-re strtlsti]rrr)c,l such information and refer the lrlorrrrarrl [.o l.lr,' Magistrate." (The Emphasis ancl underlirrinq is orrls)

12.The scheme of law which becoures apparent f-r:orn a bare perusal of these provisions is th:rt whenevr:r' a.rrr Ofllcer Incharge of a Police Station reeeives sornc information about the commlssion of An ofIencc, he ir+ expected flrst to find out whether the offen.cc disclosr:rl fell lnto the category of cogniznble offenees or wlls (|111.- which was non-cognizable. And once he uras throrrljlr r,if,ir thls exercise then the word "SHALL' appearlm.g in the srrir! provisions of eestion 154, Cr.P.C. uroultl l.nke owel: rrhiclr obliged, the S.H.O. thereafterl:o red.rrce l:ho :::r.iri information to urrlting in the First Infqrmatiorr. Il.alxlr:{ Register as, what is called by Chapter X]ilV of the l)olic<r Rules of L93,4, h F.I.R. if the oflbn,ee d.iscloscd wtii cognizable or else to merely record the sa re in Ih<: Station Diary as mentioned by secl:ion J55(t.) r>I' lh,c Cr.P.C. and rule 24.3 of the sairl Ilules and rra:li-.r' I hr: informant to the competen.t Magis{:rnte if the <rflferrr:c lrr. non-cognizable. As has been mentiotrccl itlrove set:liorrs l{-'.1 and 155 of the Cr.P.C. are the onlJi l.w() lrrovi:rirrrx-r irr llrr::,rrirl Code which talk about tire .rnarrnel irr wl rir:lr irr.lorrrrl.l i,rrr received by a S.H.O relating (o the comlnission ol an ollenco was to be treated.

13.It may be reiterated and even em.phasi,zet! tlral there was no provision in any law, lrrcluding thc sairl

IG

section 154 or 155 of the Cr.P.C. which authorizerl :ur Officer Incharge of a Police Station to holtl alr.y t-'nr;rriry lrr l( asaess the correctness or the falsity of the inftrrur.al iom o ; received by him before complying with the corn.rrr:\rrrl oi ? the said provisions which obliged him to r:educe l.he. saue into wrlting irrespective of the fact whether such :rrr \-l information was true or otherwise.

14.The wisdom was not far l-o lincl. l{'t.hc i:i.11.0" wafl given the authority to determine t.lre trrrl.trlirlrress o.r t.lrc falsehood of the allegations levellecl agair:rsl slonlc (|ue nt rrl

.f t0 _--6

thereafter to decide to recor,cl or not to l-er:ot<l srrclr llleq:rlrorr:r as F.l.R., then such a police officer^r,rzor.rl<J lr.rve r-'ol lrlr.:rs,'rl with the power to decide about the guilt or iluro<:elrc:e rr['rur accused person. This was, however, Iar from the cnvisagerl lr.lr the law-makers , regarding the identifir:atiorr an(l l lrr. consequent acquittal or conviction ol accuse<l pel'so,rr.l as tlrc said task stood assigned only to the crrur-ts ol larv atrrl lr+rrl never been concededio polioe officers.

15.It mey'be added that the Police for:ce wrrs uof ;r creation of the iode of Criminal Procedure but uras er l-or'<-ll lnttially established by the Police Act of 1861. '.fhe C<rrle *l' Crlminal Procedure oflly :[e11ewed some, from amrrrrgsl this force, and' asked them to perform so[le of itrs functions. They had, therefole, uo powers to go rtrounrl doing thlngs acgording to their whims or desir:es irr thr.. matter of administration of justicc in the {ield of crirrres,. The powers enjoyed by the members of thc lrolicr-. lirrr:": were limited to the authority conferled o ttern. htr lsrrn, And it may be added tha.l, everry step r,r,lrir:lr tlrr- (lr l'.(' permitted a police officer to take, was sLtbject lrr sr:r'utintr rrlrrl control of some court or MagiStrate. I1 nray lre ot'lrerre[il lo;1iv,' certain examples to highlight tl-re l<incl ol' rolc arrcl tlulies assigned to some of the members ol'tlre l'olit:rl lirr-t:r.: lrj, llr,- Code of Criminal Procedure."

16 to 26.

27.TIne cotrcluslons that we drau, fi'orn the ,:lbovr:" rather lengthy discussion, on the subject of IIIR nr:(-\ ,r!-r under:

(a)no authority vested in the officer lncharge ol ;r police statlon or with any one else lo rofirso l.rr record an .FIR wherc th.e irr.for:matiorr convoyr.<l- disclosed thd commission of a cognizable offensr:.

(b),(c),(d),(e)........

(fl the chec'k against lodging of false FIR's was rrnl- the refusal to record such FIR's, but punishmaut of G t1 \.:

such informants unde,r S. t 82 PPC etc, whlch shoulrl ( be, if enforced, a fair deterrent against mi.srrsc of' { irt' l{ r-, provisions of S.154 CI.PC. (bokl zrclded) o o

"I,

20.Thus, it is clear, in our view, that the concet'necl SlI0 ol I'lr Sindhri had no lawful authority to refuse to record the staternerrl <rl the petitioner or even the petitioner's brcrther t-o see whel hcr- l cognizable or non cognizable offense had been macle onl especially as the petitioner's case related to a ciifferent inr;iclent rrrosl pr-ohrrl'11,

g.sL ll

attracting different sections of the PPC to 1lle ipr:iderrt rilreaclrr narrated in Abid Ali's alreacly recordecl FII{'

21.Now that an FIR has been registered the qrrestion artses whether a second FIR can be registered. Again there is a pletlrrrl'rl t'l authority on the point ,that a seconcl FIR' can l;c tcgisl-el1-11 :'1s :t

counter version/cross case.

22.In this regard in the case of Ghanvra Bhrrtto (supraf ttro sindh High court allowbd a 3'd FIR to be registered arising ortt o[' the same incident since there were 3 completely clifl'ereul. vel-sitrtt:r t'l the alleged offense which decision was rrphelcl hv fhe I'lor.r'lrlc Supreme Court in the case of lllajid Ali Khan Duranl (Suprn)'

23.In fact the Sindh High Cour-t in the Ghanw*r Bhu'tto casr'rr (]it,(.(l (Supra| aS was upheld by the Hon,ble Supretne (]clr-rrl' ,;lfi |}\1 the Supreme Court ini lVajid Ali Khan Durani case (Suptrt\) "rl P.1558 held that; , 't

..The learned High Court after t:<rt.rsiclering ggys:ra'l (],]:]ell on the subject by the supe-rior Courts, citecl in the jrrdgnrertl' helrl as under:--

"Referencetothecase-law,therefore'indicatestl.tal therelsnohardandfastrulethattrsecondF.I.R" ucrsiorr cannot be registered in respect of n diflerent given by an aggrieved party of the same occurrclrec- If infoimation is subsequently givcn ofi[ence to ;r polit--^- olllcer, which discloses a tlifferent it is a r:rr'{!tr' trlsrr cognizable by the pollce, tlren unless ampltlication of the first version' it must be rcr::otrln<l Uy ihe police' Therefore, direction to l.lre l'rotico lo r-r-r:r)trl (,l u. F.I'.R. woulcl cleper:rd upon tlle circr:tlstattr:err """orrt eachcase'If;truefacts..inrespect-o'[attcrcct.tl.l"cll(.(];lIl rrot reflected by tlre first F.I.R" tlrorr..1\1s;:-Il l,tt t.c(:rrt-r| ,r

genuine versio; of the same occtlrreflo() worrlcl tl,rl lr,' j-ustified'Thequestionl-rastheret-ol"e't<rkreexatrrittcrlirr \\ IG H it-t" tigt t of the circumstatlces ol'a 1:rarf iculal' t--as(: '" l o f'! li, ij z+. In our view the present case is also distinguishable frour ltre usual authorities on the registratiou of )ntl FlR',s wtriclr gerrer-rrllv relate to counter versions/cross cases arising t'rut ol' tlte sartlr-

incident.Thlsisbecausethecaseofthepetitlonerasalleged.irr the petition is a total$ dlfferent one to the case alleged agalnelr .t tr, '

I

t2 8s3

hlm in the f.IR lodged agalnst him hy Abid Ali"'['hc irr<.'i.l"trlrr appear to us to be completely,clifferenl- r'rtrcl rr-'Iatc ltr rlil'tclctri offenses. Thus in our view since,the petitioner's case is l.rnsetl orr different facts and ciroumstances (and a dillerent incident) wltir lr would most probably attract different secl-ions of l:lre PI'(l il utrt ltr- regarded as a lst FIR in a new case if the petitionef I'lltorlgl r lri:. statement is able to make out a cognizable oft'crr.sc r-urrl ttol.r:r ..r(!r-{rlrl FIR in respect of the same incident.

i

25.In our view there are also numerous important aspecl.s o{'i-his case which, in the interests of justice, nlalie the tal<irrg o[ tlr'- petitioner's statement by the concerned SI{O ttrarrcihlorn lo sce i[ ,t cognizable offense is made out which are as lbllows:

(a)It appears that,the police are prima facie lavorint{ one prrll.v over the other perhaps because the parly lor whotlr ll-re 1' registered an FIR is influential whereas the .petil.ioner i:,r ,, so called comrnon *., *ithout any hackhrg.

(b)That under a complaint under S.491 Cr.PC the petiliori''r was found by a raiding party as l)er its report. drrtecl ',1, I ()'l 2O16 in a battered, bruised and hurnilial-ed condilir.rtl al PS Sindri where no roznamcha entry or mashirnam.a ol arrest was produced on accoullt of a lame cxr:ttse. 'l'lt.r' petitioner had also not been proclucecl before a rta.girrltalr- or other courti within 24 hours of his allegerl al'fest rr:r provided by law and may not have beert sio lrroclttt:ecl lrr.rrl il not been for the raid. Significantly the petitionet nart-alc<l his same story to the raid party a day after his arrest whiclr rl,.l conformed with the versiol'I of his broljrer who ha.rl errtlicr

Y\ IU

filed the application under 5,491 (.ir'.P(l which lead 1o tlrc o raid

(c)That the petitioner's injuries l-lave been confirrnerl tlrroutql r medical reports which are on recorcl.

(d)The mashirnama of arrest of the petitioner states ttraf when the police, reached the scene of the shootitrg bottt l.lrc injured person and the petitioner were still preserrl. 'l'l risr

B{q l3 .a.....-.-.---_

seems hard to fathom bearing in ntinrJ llral. ll're injrrt'etl person ought immediately beer-r takerr t-o |trlsllrit;rl, alttl lttlu, was it possible to capture a duly armed petitioner bv the locals who had already allegedly shot otre persotri'" sr-tl.elY hewouldnothavehungarouncltobeca.tt,gttla'lrr]rn,r.rttlrl havemadehis.escapejustliketheothera.ccused.irtt-['r<: incident Muhafiz Ali. Why. was it also tlecessatry lo ttterrlitrrr in the mashirnama that ttie some of the petitiorrer's hai|r'*, eye brows and moustache were already crrt? Were thr-- police pre-empting the petitioner's t'^"" lhert tre was beater r up and humiliated by responclent No.ll Cilr,alilr .It-ttrt:ir.l', There is however no mention that he is in a, iniureci stal ,' despite him being found a day later at lhe ['S being' harllv beaten by the raiding party which begs tlre clue:rliorr a'r l. whogavehimsuchabeatirrg?Themastrirnalna.ofar,r.es{- and recovery dlso appears to contradict the FIR lodgecl against the petitioner which statcs that afl.er- the sltcrttlirtli incident toth ihe accused absconded on their motol' r-'.yr:lc'. The said mashirnama also contt"aclicts llre sairl lrlli l'\' stating the injiired was present at the f.ime nf ttre arresl. t'l' the petitioner dt Abid Ja[oi's lands when a.ccor:ding to ttre FIR the injured went to the trospit-al alter ttre iricidetri ' These appear to' u's l.o hc 1vtrr.i.t

discrepancies/bontradictions whictr prinra [acie seerrt l" caste doubt on the case against the pel-itttrrrellasr pe| lltr' FIR registered'against hirn' There also atrrpeals ttr lte it 'l t hour delay in l6dging the FIR wleich tras gone unexlrlainerl keepinginviewthatitissettledlaw|.hattheprompl.itltde in lodging an FIR is one of the key factot's in cletermirrirrr the credibility and reliability of its contenls. 'l'het.'e aplrea|s:r tobenoreasonwhyAbidAlilvaite<11.)hrlttt.lll'.l.rtc

IG

registering the FIR lt

26.Thus, in the interests of justice and for the above tuentiotrecl reasons the impugned orders ar€j set asidc and lhc llH0 '''jitrrlt't. basedontheparticularfactsandcircurrrstancesol'tlrisca:lc.r'. directed to record the statement of the petitione[ r;Til.hottl furl lrer' '!i

gf(' l r.l

,l<'lrrji,rrrtl l'egistel'it as eitl-rer a cogllizal-)le ollc'trr+c (ll rr{)lr <'or:t tt;nl'l' ol'lCtrslr: a-trrf thetr pfoceecl fUfthel Sl-ictly ill il, t't,t,l.trtt't'rntillt l:trxr ',1, 1. |t view of the above discussiot-r tltis t:c'nstitr-ttiort Felil iotr r;lrrtrrlrr disp-rosecl of in the above terms.

sD-MUIIArvti"lAp 64]i1M E]{AN A(iIIA.

I I lyde l-at-racl .

JUDGE.

Dated: 19.O5.2017 SD-NAIYTAIUL]'AH FH iIJ'f L)TO'

JUDG]'.

,,tl l' t)

H CEif,IFIEgTD lEITUE

i EGI a

li t f 17 r-

I

f, t t i

F