THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Misc. Application No.S-06 of 2024

Applicant:               Naeem Ahmed, son of Ghulam Mustafa Gopang through Mr Habibullah G. Ghouri, Advocate.

Respondents:        The S.H.O. P.S Khabbar and others. Through Mr Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Proposed accused: Through Mr. Abdul Rahman A. Bhutto, Advocate.

Date of Hearing:    01.10.2024

Date of Order:        01.10.2024

O R D E R

KHADIM HUSSAIN SOOMRO, J.-Through this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, the applicant has impugned the Order dated 21.12.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shahadadkot in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.2602/2023 (Re-Naeem Ahmed v/s. S.H.O P.S. Khabbar and others), wherein the application filed for registration of F.I.R. against the proposed accused was dismissed and being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the same has been impugned before this Court.

2.                  It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that there is a dispute between the parties over landed property, and on 01.12.2023, the proposed accused, duly armed with weapons, attacked the complainant party, who were working in the field and made certain injuries by using butt blows and made aerial firing; that the applicant has received the medical certificate in respect of the injuries, inspite of that learned trial Court did not issue directions for registration of the F.I.R. He further submits that S.H.O. P.S. Khabbar, District Kamber-Shahadadkot may be directed to record the statement of the applicant and if the cognizable offence is made out then register the F.I.R.

3.                  The learned Deputy Prosecutor General has submitted that an F.I.R. of the same incident, having crime No.16 of 2023, has also been lodged against the applicant; therefore, the second F.I.R. is not sustainable under the law. However he has no objection if the statements of the applicants and his witnesses are recorded, and the same may be made as part of the same crime bearing F.I.R. No.16 of 2023.

4.                  Learned counsel for the proposed accused submits that there is enmity between the parties, and this Criminal Miscellaneous Application has been filed malafidely in order to implicate them in a false case. He further stated that an F.I.R. of the same incident, having crime No.16 of 2023, has also been lodged against the applicant; therefore, the second F.I.R. is not sustainable under the law. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the Sughran Bibi case reported as PLD 2018 SC 595. Hence, the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application may be dismissed.

5.                  I heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the proposed accused, learned Deputy Prosecutor General, and perused the material available on record with their assistance. Given that the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant are corroborated by the medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer, this fact must not be overlooked under the circumstances in the case of Sughra Bibi Vs. The State (P L D 2018 Supreme Court 595), in para No.27, the honourable apex court of Pakistan has observed that if there are various versions of the same incident, it is to be brought to the notice of the investigation officer by way of recording 161 Cr.P.C Statement and the same is to be submitted before the trial court However, second F.I.R. is not sustainable in the eyes of the law. In these circumstances, the S.H.O. P.S.Khabar is directed to record the statements of the applicant and his witnesses in F.I.R. No.16 of 2023 as per their verbatim and investigate the matter properly and submit such report before the learned trial court in accordance with the law.

                     Criminal Miscellaneous Application stands disposed of in the above terms.

                        J U D G E

Manzoor