Cr.Misc.A.No.S-86 of 2013

 

For Katcha Peshi

 

 

 

22.02.2013

 

 

Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed Kolachi: Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Zulfiquar Ali Jatoi: D.P.G. for the State.

 

                                       -----------

 

Through instant application Eidan Khan has assailed the order dated 11th February, 2013 in Cr.Misc.A.No.137 of 2013 (Re-Edian Khan vs. S.H.O.P.S.Kambhra), whereby application u/s 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C. was declined by the learned Justice of Peace/Sessions Judge Ghotki.

 

2.         Relevant facts are that applicant seeks registration of 2nd F.I.R regarding the incident, cognizance, whereof was already taken by the court; culminating to the F.I.R bearing Crime No.12/2013, lodged by Mst.Meharyani, with allegation that accused Beerbal; caused murder of her husband.  Applicant Eidan Khan filed application before Justice of Peace/Sessions Judge Ghotki, which discloses same story as narrated in said F.I.R; but apprehends that complainant Mst Meharyani is wife of victim, and may patched-up with the accused and will not pursue the case properly.

 

3.         Learned counsel for the applicant inter-alia contends that applicant has dispute with her daughter-in-law. In fact applicant produced accused Beerbal at police station but police wrongly recorded statement of Mst. Meharyani; instead of applicant; SHO is duty bound to record statement of any informant. Thus impugned order is against the norms of criminal administration of justice.

 

4.         Conversely, Learned D.P.G. argued that accused is son of applicant and the version of Mst.Meharyani; recorded at the concerned police station is not contradictory to the version of applicant, therefore, second FIR will not serve any purpose.              

 

5.         After meticulous examination of available record and careful consideration of contentions of respective parties, it is pertinent to mention here that case of applicant and Mst.Meharyani, who lodged, aforesaid FIR, is exactly same regarding name of accused and manner of incident. Moreover applicant himself contends that accused was produced by him before the police station but he was not allowed to be complainant in this case. It is also matter of record that after registration of case; investigation was carried out, recovery was effected from the named accused and Case is pending for adjudication.

 

6.         Here I would like to make the purpose and objective of lodgment of FIR which is nothing but to bring the law into motion. The provision of Section 154 of the Code leaves nothing ambiguous that it is the information of a cognizable offence which matters and not the informer. It is the outcome of such exercise by law enforcing agency in result of such information upon which cognizance is taken by the Court (s), therefore, I do not find any substance in the plea of the learned counsel for the applicant that since he has apprehension of winning over of Mst. Meharyani by accused in future; therefore, second FIR should be recorded. I feel it proper to endorse here that though the lodgment of second FIR is not barred under the law but since provision of Section 154 of the Code further makes it clear that law is to be brought into motion with regard an incident hence it is safe to say that it is the information of cognizable offence, which is thrashed by Law Enforcing agency through course of investigation, thus, two FIRs, in normal course, cannot prevail. I is pertinent to add here that through course of investigation, even information can well be found false, not worth sending accused to face his trial and even it may result into holding the informer the accused.

 

7.         Without prejudice to above, It is suffice to say that version of applicant, which applicant intends to give to police, is already recorded by first informant, who is daughter-in-law of applicant; therefore, it will be abuse of process of law to issue direction for second FIR only on apprehension of applicant that such lady will not pursue the case in proper manner. Needless to say that in criminal administration of justice any aggrieved person can pursue the case of his nearer and dearer.  Moreover apprehension of applicant that complainant will patched up with accused, is not appealing to the prudent mind and is irrelevant because applicant himself is father and according to him mother of deceased is also alive,  therefore, wife is not sole legal heir to compound the offence. Further, mere becoming of the applicant as first informant, would not take away the legal status Mst. Meharyani as widow of deceased, thus contention of applicant is devoid of merits and impugned order passed by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is according to law. Furthermore, Counsel for applicant has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity and infirmity in impugned order. Consequently, the instant application is dismissed.            

 

 

 

 

                                                                                          J U D G E

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Imran