Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 95‑R of 1976, decided on 2nd June, 1976.

(On appeal from judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 14th May, 1976, in Writ Petition No. 511 of 1976).

-------S. 154 and Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑First Information Report‑Case registered in respect of previous occurrence‑Registration of fresh case, held, not called for notwith standing divergent version contained therein‑Police not only competent but also duty bound to unearth true facts and trace real culprit.

----S. 561‑A and Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑Impugned order prima facie passed as a result .of some confusion or accidental slip‑Held, proper course in circumstances to approach High Court for review of orders.

S. M. Zubair, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri for Petitioners.

Nemo for the State.

Laura petitioner herein has felt aggrieved by the order of the learned Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court dated 14‑5‑1976 made in W. P. No. 511/1976 filed by Ghulam Siddique respondent No. 2 herein directing the registration of the letter's report under section 154, Cr. P. C. relating to the murder of his father, and recourse to further proceedings in accordance with Chapter XIX of the Code.

2. A case under section 302, Cr. P. C. registered at Police Station Saddar, D. G. Khan vide F. I. R. 23 dated 7‑2‑1976 relating to the murder of one Haji Jewan father of Ghulam Siddique respondent No. 2. The report was lodged by Essa who mentioned one Ghulam Muhammad as the solitary accused, On the following day the said Ghulam Muhammad was also murdered by some persons while he was allegedly proceeding to the police station alongwith his brother‑in‑law Qadir Bakhsh who lodged the report at the police station about his murder which was registered as F. I. R. 24 dated 8‑2‑1976. Kaura petitioner herein and some others were mentioned as the accused persons responsible for the murder of Ghulam Muhammad.

3. On 23‑2‑1976 Ghulam Siddique respondent No. 2. son of Haji Jewan sent. an application to the Investigating Officer alleging that his father Haji Jewan was not murdered by Ghulam Muhammad but by Kaura petitioner herein and. some others. It appears that the local police declined to register a second report in respect of the same murder whereupon Ghulam Siddique moved W. P. 511/76 seeking a direction from the High Court for the registration of a fresh case against another set of accused but in respect of the murder of Haji Jewan regarding which a base F. I. R. 23 had already been registered on 7‑2‑1976. The petition came up before the learned Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court and a direction was made for registration of the case as prayed by Ghulam Siddique. In compliance with his direction the local police appears to have registered a fresh case in respect of the same murder. Feeling aggrieved Kaura petitioner has sought leave to appeal.

4. Relying on Ramzan v. The State (P L D 1967 Lah. 588), Lakhmir v. The State (P L D 1963 Quetta 7), Mansur Ali and others v. The State (1970 P Cr. L J 287) and Ranlal Singh and others v. The State (A I R 1953 Madh. Pra. 380), learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before us the case having once been registered in respect of the murder of Haji Jewan in terms of section 154, Cr. P. C. fresh registration was not validly called for. It was submitted that besides being contrary to the letter and spirit of the law the second time registration of the case had caused serious prejudice to the petitioner and his co‑accused in the matter of bail, etc.

5. It appears to us that once the case was registered vide F. I. R. 2 dated 7‑2‑1976 in respect of the murder of Haji lewan the registration of fresh report notwithstanding the divergent version contained therein was not called for inasmuch as the bail had already been set rolling and the Police was not only competent but also duty bound to unearth the true facts an 6 trace the real culprits. The impugned order seems to be the result of some confusion or accidental slip. Indeed learned counsel pointed out that o the same day on similar facts that learned Chief Justice had declined issue any direction to the Police for the registration of a fresh case regarding the same transaction though a counter‑version was alleged in that case also. In these circumstances we consider the better course would be to approach the High Court for review of the order and there is no reason why the High Court should not rectify the situation.

With the above observations the petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.