Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUSHTAQ AH MAD VS Respondent: THE S. H. 0., POLICE STATION, MUNAWAN
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Abdul Shakurul Salam, Muhammad Aslam Mian Title: MUSHTAQ AH MAD vs THE S. H. 0., POLICE STATION, MUNAWAN Case No.: Intra-Court Appeal No, 76 of 1984 Date of Judgment:1984-04-20 Reported As: 1984 P Cr. L J 1454 Result: Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J .-The appellant wanted to give a counter-version in respect of an occurrence in which a case under section 302/307, P. P. C. Was registered against the appellant party. The counter-version was that the other side was aggressor. For this purpose he filed Writ Petition No, 1164/84 which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence this appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that since the appellant was giving a counter- version of the occurrence the S. H.O. Was duty bound under section 154, Cr. P. C. To register the case and for his failure a direction should be issued. 3. When a case has been registered in respect of an occurrence, no second case can be registered giving a counter-version thereof by the accused persons. If this were so in each criminal case, there will be one F. I. R. Lodged by the complainant party and another by the accused because it is not likely that any of the accused will not have a counter-version of the allegations made against him in the F. I. R. That would mean that for each crime two F. I. Rs, should be registered. This, of course, is not the law. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to Muhammad Ibrahim v. S.H.O. Police Station, Mansehra and another . A perusal of the judgment would show that such a direction was declined and the writ petition was dismissed. It is by now clearly established law that no direction can be issued for registration of a case when a F. I. R. Has already been registered in respect of the occurrence for giving counter-version of the other side. The appellant has otherwise an alternate remedy by way of filing a complaint. 4. In view of what has been stated above there is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed, in limine. 1