Find a Lawyer

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Registration of case‑‑No relief claimed against certain respondents‑‑ Petitioner having cause against remaining respondents‑ Petition, held, could not be dismissed against all respondents‑‑ Petition dismissed against respondents who were not necessary party.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 156(3)‑ Appropriate and efficacious remedy‑‑F.I.R. about same incident registered after consultation with Deputy Commissioner‑‑Remedy under S.156(3), Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), held, would be neither appropriate nor efficacious in circumstances.

(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Second F.I.R., recording of‑‑Incident admitted and F.I.R. already recorded‑‑Petitioner making allegations against police and army personnel‑‑Recording of second F.I.R. giving counter‑version of incident, held, was not barred‑‑Respondents directed to register case of petitioner as proposed by him.

Abdul Qadir Halepota for Petitioner.

Muhammad Ibraheem Memon, A.A.‑G. for Respondents.

Dates of hearing: 6th and 10th March, 1986.

ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J

.‑‑The petitioner has filed this petition seeking reliefs against the respondent No. 1 who refused to register the case about the incident which occurred between 25/26 April, 1985 in Village Salim Dahri. According to the petitioner he and his relatives reside in Village Salim Dahri which was surrounded by the police. As a result of firing the Nekmard of the village namely Salim Dahri succumbed to the injuries. A copy of F.I.R. has been filed by‑the petitioner, which has been lodged by respondent No. 2 on behalf of State. According to the petitioner it is not correct version of the incident.

The learned A.A.‑G. raised three‑fold objections, firstly; respondents 3 to 7 have been impleaded though they are not necessary party and no relief is claimed against them; secondly, there is an adequate remedy under section 156(3), Cr.P.C. a Magistrate is empowered under section 190, Cr.P.C. and he may order such an investigation. The petitioner may approach the Magistrate having jurisdiction for such relief and which in this case has not been done; and thirdly, no names of the culprits have been given in the proposed F.I.R.

We agree with the contention of the learned A.A.‑G. that respondents 3 to 7 are not the necessary parties. The petition against them is dismissed but on this technical ground petition cannot be dismissed against respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner has a cause against respondents 1 and 2, who refused to register the case. As to the second objection, it is the contention of the petitioner that the F.I.R., dated 26‑4‑1985 (Annexure 'A' to the petition) has been registered after consultation with the Deputy Commissioner, therefore, a remedy under section 156(3), Cr.P.C. is neither appropriate, nor efficacious. As regards the last contention, the petitioner has made allegation in the report against police and army personnels. The incident is admitted and F.I.R. has also been registered. There is no bar of recording a second F.I.R. of the same incident giving counter‑version of the incident. We, therefore, direct the respondents 1 and 2 to register the case of the petitioner as proposed by him in Annexure 'C'. The petitioner would approach the respondents 1 and 2 for the registration of the case, and it is for the investigating agency to find out the truth.

The petition is accepted in the above terms with no order as to costs.

S.A./4‑G/K Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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