Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 SCMR 1117
Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court
Year of Decision: 2024
Decision Date: 2024-12-31
Parties: Dost Ali Solangi son of Din Muhammad vs Manzoor Ali son of Allah JUDGMENT
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court on 2024-12-31, officially reported as 2025 SCMR 1117. In this matter between Dost Ali Solangi son of Din Muhammad and Manzoor Ali son of Allah JUDGMENT, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
Case cited as 2025 SCMR 1117
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Saleem Jessar, Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro Title:Dost Ali Solangi son of Din Muhammad vs Manzoor Ali son of Allah
JUDGMENT
Reported As: 2025 SHC SUK 2223 Result: Petition Disposed of Judgment
JUDGMENT Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J.- Through instant Petition, the Petitioner has claimed following relief: i. To suspend the operation of Notice dated 06.08.2025 and proceedings in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2978/2025 pending before Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moro, District Naushero Feroz until final adjudication of this Petition. ii. To quash the proceedings in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2978/2025 pending before Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moro, District Naushero Feroz. iii. To restrict the Official Respondents from lodgement of any other FIR in purview of the incident as recorded in FIR No. 170/2025 at PS Moro, District Naushero Feroz. 2. Mr. Nazeer Ahmed Junejo, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Respondent No 5 has filed an application under section 22 - A (6) (i) Cr.P.C before the Court of Learned Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Naushehro Feroze for seeking directions to the SHO concerned for registration of his FIR against proposed accused, which was assigned to the Court of Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge Moro, for its disposal in accordance with law. He argued that the Respondent No 5 sought registration of second FIR for the incidents which were subject matter of FIR No 170 / 2025, 171 of 2025 and 172 of 2025 registered at police station Moro. He contended that in terms of section 154 CrPC two FIRs of the one and same incident cannot be registered. He argued that Learned Justice of peace erred in law by entertaining the application. He argued that not only the application was entertained but Learned Ex- Officio Justice of Peace, started inquiry into the
---
## Page 2
matter by calling reports from Medico Legal Officer who conducted post-mortem of deceased and examined the injured. He contended that from bare reading of the contents of the application filed by Respondent No 5 it transpired that he wanted to record another FIR of the same incident, as such the application was not maintainable and should have been declined straight away. He next contended that Ex-Officio Justice of Peace was not competent under the law to entertain an application seeking registration of Second FIR. He contended that the issue of registration of more than one FIR for the same incident has been settled at rest by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mst Shugran Bibi Vs The State reported as 2018 PLD SC 595, wherein the practice of recording more than one FIR for the same incident has been depreciated. He contended that the Supreme Court was binding upon subordinate courts as the same settled a principle of law interpreting the wisdom and intent of legislation for section 154 of CrPC. 3. When confronted with Office objections as to maintainability of instant petition, Learned Counsel argued that the Petition was maintainable as it involved a question of law regarding powers of justice of peace to entertain an application for registration of Second FIR of the same incident. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the case of Mst Shugran Bibi Vs The State reported as 2018 PLD SC 595, Jamshed Ahmad v. Muhammad Akram Khan and another (1975 SCMR 149) and Kaura v. The State and others (1979 PCr.LJ 521). He further argued that Learned Ex - Officio Justice of Peace in peculiar facts and circumstances lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application seeking registration of Second FIR when from bare reading of contents of said application it transpired that FIR for the same incident was already recorded at Police Station Moro. He prayed for quashment of the proceedings in criminal miscellaneous application No 2978 of 2025. 4. Mr. Meer Ahmed Mangrio, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No 5 contended that the Petition was not maintainable, as the justice of peace had only entertained an application and no adverse order was passed, therefore, Petition cannot be maintained for apprehension that the forum seized with the matter might pass an adverse order. He contended that Respondent No 5 wanted to record his statement in terms of section 154 CrPC which cannot be denied. He contended that in the Moro incident two relatives of the Respondent No 5 were killed and many other were injured, but police recorded FIR contrary to the real facts. He argued that Respondent No 5 was real aggrieved person, therefore, refusal to record his version would be tantamount to impinging his fundamental rights. 5. When confronted that the incident as per the version contained in memo of application under section 22 A (6) (i) Cr.P.C took place in the month of May, whereas the application was delayed by more than two months' time. He failed to explain such delay. Mr. Mangrio was confronted with the judgment of Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Sughra Bibi (supra) which omitted the scope for registration of more than one FIR for same incident, he contended that Sughra Bibi case would not apply to the facts and circumstances of present case. He placed reliance upon the case of Syed Qamber Ali Shah Versus Province of Sindh and others 2024 SCMR 1123, Rai Ashraf and others Versus Mohammed Saleem Bhatti and others PLD 2010 SC 691, Abdul Rehman Malik Versus Synthia D. Ritchi, Americans National and others 2020 SCMR 2037, Mohammed Bashir Versus SHO PS Cantt PLD 2007 SC 539. He prayed for dismissal of the Petition. 6. Mr. Ali Raza Baloch, Learned Additional Advocate General Sindh, so assisted by Mr. Ghulam Abasss Kubar Learned Assistant Advocate General Sindh contended that Learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace lacked jurisdiction to entertain an application seeking registration of second FIR for the same incident. He contended that the application under section 22-A (6) (i) Cr.P.C was not maintainable as per the facts and circumstances of the case, thus proceedings undertaken by Learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace were bad under the law and are liable to be quashed. He placed reliance on the case of Younas Abass Vs Additional District & Sessions Judge Chakwal and
---
## Page 3
others PLD 2016 SC 581, Ayesha Tayab Versus Station House Officer, Police Station Cantt. District Sialkot and others 2025 SCMR 1117, M.S. Khwaja Vs The State PLD 1965 SC 287, Mst Maryam Tariq and others Versus SHO Police Station Defence and others PLD 2015 Sindh 382 7. Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Jatoi Learned Additional Advocate General, Sindh so assisted by Mr Aftab Ahmed Shar, Addl. P.G, Sindh supported the case of Petitioner. He contended that the application under section 22 - A (6) (i) Cr.P.C from its face was not maintainable. He contended that Respondent No 5 has arrayed all the police officials as proposed accused in the present petition who are either complainant or witnesses in FIR No 170 of 2025 registered under section 302, 353, 324 PPC read with Sections 6 - 7 of ATA, 1997 which prima facie constituted his defence, which can be recorded either before investigation officer of the case or before the trial court. He contended that two FIRs of the same incident cannot be allowed, if the Respondent No 5 is allowed to record his FIR, it will militate the provisions of section 154 CrPC which mandated for recording of one FIR only. He contended that the petition was maintainable and proceedings before the Ex - Officio Justice of Peace were corum non judice and are liable to be quashed. 8. Heard arguments, perused material made available before us on record. 9. Moot point involved in present petition is whether second FIR on the same incident can be recorded? And Whether Ex-Officio Justice of Peace can entertain an application seeking directions for registration of second FIR of the same incident? 10. Scanning of the material made available before us revealed that on 20.05.2025 a protest demonstration was held at Moro bypass at about 03:00 PM. Police reached at the place of protest and asked the mob to open road which they refused. The mob went unruly and started damaging the vehicles, setting on fire the public and private property and causing injuries to police officers of police station Moro. The FIR of the incident was recorded by SHO Police Station Moro for an offence punishable under section 324, 353, 427, 435, 397, 398, 431, 337 Hii, 147, 148, 149, 109 PPC and 6 - 7 of ATA, 1997 vide crime No 170 of 2025 registered at police station Moro. Per record in the incident Inspector Ghulam Hussain Dahri, PC Tahir Afzal Dahri, PC Saddam Hussain Mubejo, PC Seengar Ali Laghari, PC Farooq Ahmed Sahito, PC Zahid Hussain Lashari were injured at the hands of protestors. Record further transpired that government ammunition was also robbed from the police. Per contents of FIR the video recording of the incident was also available, wherefrom the facts of the incident could be verified. The FIR mentions that protestors Zahid Leghari, Irfan Leghari, Shehzado Leghari, Dilber and Wishal sustained fire arm injuries. 11. After the first incident, the protestors mobbed Police Station Moro, at about 07:00 pm ransacked the police station and set on fire police van, for the said incident FIR No 171 of 2025 was recorded by ASI Abdul Majeed Dahr at Police Station Moro for an offence punishable under section 324, 353, 427, 435, 337 Hii, 148, 149, 1504 PPC and 6 - 7 of ATA, 1997 against 50 nominated and 70/75 unidentified accused. 12. ecord further evidenced that unruly mob attacked the house of Provincial Minister for Law & Parliamentary Affairs, who is elected MPA from Moro City and set it on fire, robbed valuable articles, at about 04:15 PM for which Petitioner Dost Ali Solangi who is caretaker of the house recorded FIR No 172 of 2025 at Police Station Moro for the offence punishable under section 324, 353, 436, 397, 450, 337 Ai, 337 Aii, 147, 148, 149, 109 PPC and 6 - 7 of ATA against 28 nominated and 50 / 60 unidentified accused person. 13. nother FIR No 173 of 2025 for offences punishable under section 123 A, 151 PPC was recorded by ASI Ali Mardan against 14 nominated and 30 unidentified accused who gathered at Guchero Road in the night of 20.05.2025 blocked road and chanted slogans against the sovereignty of Pakistan. 14. IR No 175 of 2025 was recorded at police station Moro by Miran Khan Solangi for an offence under section 324, 337 Hii, 147, 148 PPC against 8 nominated and 10/15 unidentified accused who caused injury to his brother Wali Mohammed with intention to commit murder at about 03:00 PM
---
## Page 4
on 20.05.2025 when he defied the protestors who wanted to shut hotel where complainant party was taking tea. 15. eries of above FIRs evidenced that Moro City remained in the control of unruly mob for whole day on 20.05.2025, the protestors vandalised and set on fire public and private property at different times in the city for which Police registered Three FIRs and Private Persons registered two FIRs, all for the different incidents happening at different places on the same day. 16. n 22.07.2025, the respondent No.5 filed an application under section 22 - A (6) (i) Cr.P.C seeking registration of FIR, before the Court of Learned District & Sessions Judge Naushehro Feroze (Ex - Officio Justice of Peace) which was assigned to the Court of Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge Moro for its disposal in accordance with law. 17. n Para No 6 to 9 of the application, applicant/Respondent No 5 has set forth the set of allegations which he intended to record at police station Moro for incorporation of the same under 154 Cr.P.C Book. The Paras No.6 to 9 of the application for a better understanding, are reproduced herein below: "6. hat after all the protests were called off in the entire province, the news of extracting the same canals again even after the notification of CCI for turning down such plan, started to float through social media as well as electronic & print media, that no any extracting work on canals project has been stopped but is progressing illegally. Upon hearing such news all people of Sindh were anxious and planned to start the protests again in such regard likewise other districts, the people of Moro also initiated their peaceful protest regarding the same concern. On 20-05-2025 people of Moro organized protest at Dadu Bypass, Moro at Admore Pump against extraction of six canals on Indus River and corporate farming in which students, farmers, social workers, political activists and people of nearby villages including Respondent No. 5 and his relatives (as their village is located at the bank of River Indus and their life wholly solly is dependent with their Agricultural Lands by getting water of it) participated including relatives of applicant's village Bijrani Laghari namely (1) Qurban Ali Laghari S/O Darban Laghari (2) Nabi Bux S/O Mian Ditto (3) Dilber S/O Ali Nawaz (4) Mohsin S/O Rahib Ali were present at Dadu Bypass Admore pump at about 02:45 pm police officials in police mobiles started gathered at Dadu Bypass, Moro, all were armed with weapons. Police officials in the supervision of SSP Sanghar Malik, DIB Incharge Nosheros Feroz, Shahid Ali Dahraj armed with KK, S.H.O Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Narejo armed with pistol, DSP Mohsin Jandan armed with gun, SHO PS New Jatoi Muhammad Rafique Bohyo armed with Rifle, PC Ayaz Bhutto armed with Pistol, ASI Asad Chandio armed with pistol, Shahid Zardari CIA personnel along with 40 to 50 police person having lathis and pistol and other weapons in their hands came at the palace of protest at 1500 hours, accused Sanghar Malik said vacate the road and stop the protest otherwise we have got instant directions from Zia-ul-Hassan Lanjar to kill you all here. On that Irfan Laghari from my village retaliate him by saying we will not vacate the road until we record our protest. Thereafter, SSP Sanghar Malik instigate all proposed accused to made straight fires on the protestors, meanwhile applicant saw that one proposed accused namely Shahid Zardari pointed out Irfan Laghari to PC Ayaz Bhutto and SHO Mujeeb-ur-Rehman. PC Ayaz Bhutto fired from his pistol which directly hit on leg of Irfan Laghari and fell down. Then SHO Mujeeb-ur- Rehman Narejo came upon Irfan and made straight fire from his gun which directly hit face of Irfan Laghari & on the other hand other unknown police personnel started lathi charge and made straight firing on the protestors while all other proposed accused persons beaten applicant and other protestors with lathis. That police made heavy aerial firing to create panic and harassment. The applicant was trying rescue himself and other protestors while PW Qurban Laghari S/O Darban Laghari and Nabi Bux Laghari along with others took the injured Irfan Laghari to the Taluka Hospital Moro wherefrom injured Irfan laghari got first aid then referred to Nawabshah hospital
---
## Page 5
then referred to Civil Hospital Hyderabad due to his serious condition at Hyderabad he died succumbed injuries. 7. hat in reaction/condemnation attack on protest and straight fire to Irfan Laghari. The villagers of Bijrani Laghari and other citizens gathered at Gachero Chowk Moro to protest against police action. Among others applicant's brother Zahid Laghari, Dilber laghari Mohsin Laghari and others were present. At about 04:30 pm applicant saw that people of Solangi community namely (1) Faraz @ Gul S/O Zahid Solangi armed with khilashankoff (2) Afzal Solangi S/O Khair Muhammad Solangi armed with Klashankoff (3) Shaman Solangi armed with Kilashankoff (4) Javed Ali S/O Asghar Ali armed with pistol (5) Jansar Ali S/O Ghulam Nabi Solangi armed with Rifle (6) Wali Muhammad S/o Haji Khan Solangi armed with rifle (7) Meeran Khan Solangi S/O Haji Khan Solangi armed with Repeater (8) Muneer S/O Asghar Solangi armed with kilashankoff along with 30 to 40 Unknown persons immediately came at the place while making firing in their way to place of incident. They threaten applicant party to vacate the road. We refuse to stop our peaceful protest on that accused Afzal Solangi made straight fire from his gun which hit Zahid Laghari's forehead due to which he fell down on the ground, accused Faraz Gul made straight fire from his Kilashankoff with intention to kill which hit to right leg of Mohsin Laghari accused Shaman Solangi with intention to kill made two straight fires from his gun which hit left side leg of Dilber Laghari and repeatedly third fired was made by Javed Solangi which hit on the same leg of Dilber Laghari on which he fell down on the ground. While Meeran Khan Solangi and Muneer Ahmed Solangi along with all other accused persons after injuring the victims made aerial firing to spread fear & terror and went away towards Lanjar House. After that applicant along with some nearby people took the injured Dilber Laghari, Zahid Laghari & Mohsin Laghari on motorcycles to the Taluka Hospital Moro where doctors referred Zahid Laghari to the Civil Hospital Nawabshah where Doctors Confirmed his Death and initiated treatment of injured Dilber Laghari and Mohsin laghari and then referred them to Civil Hospital Nawabshah. Where from injured Dilber referred to Karachi Trauma Centre. 8. hat it is important to mention here that above mentioned proposed accused of Supra Para No 7 were clearly seen in the recorded videos by themselves, having heavy weapons, uttering words against applicants and performing horrific incident. 9. hat injured Irfan Laghari due to his unconsciousness shifted him from civil Hospital Moro to Nawab Shah where he immediately after performing CT scan admitted to ICU but due to the unavailability of expert surgeons, again injured Irfan Laghari shifted to the Civil Hospital Hyderabad where he was admitted for two days and he took his last breath on 23-05-2025. Doctors performed the post mortem of deceased. When news of deceased was circulated in social media peoples from different platforms including lawyers to show the sympathy gathered at Civil Hospital Hyderabad then applicant saw that heavy contingency of Police came and illegally taken away the dead body of deceased and made arrest of all persons whom were there. Such brutal act of state machinery was criticized by the peoples of whole province due to such pressure police personnel buried the dead body of deceased Irfan Laghari in the absence of his legal heirs." 18. t is important to notice that in Para No 10 of the application No. 2978/2025, it has been mentioned that Police had already registered FIRs of the incident and relatives of the Applicant / Respondent No 5 were accused in the said FIRs. Admittedly Respondent No 5 sought registration of Second FIR, on which the law by now has been settled and well propounded that on registration of FIR for an incident. Even the contents of the allegations in the above referred para were not in consonance with the factual story as the applicant has stated that the incident took place at 04:30 PM whereas per medical record the injured of the incident reached the hospital before 04:00 PM on
---
## Page 6
the same day. This factual discrepancy reflected that Petitioner wanted to bring a counter blast to the version given by the police and other private persons. 19. The Second FIR cannot be recorded as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mst. Sughra Bibi Versus the State reported as PLD 2018 SC 591. It will be conducive to reproduce the operative part of the judgment: "27. As a result of the discussion made above we declare the legal position as follows: (i) ccording to section 154, Cr.P.C. an FIR is only the first information to the local police about commission of a cognizable offence. For instance, an information received from any source that a murder has been committed in such and such village is to be a valid and sufficient basis for registration of an FIR in that regard. (ii) f the information received by the local police about commission of a cognizable offence also contains a version as to how the relevant offence was committed, by whom it was committed and in which background it was committed then that version of the incident is only the version of the informant and nothing more and such version is not to be unreservedly accepted by the investigating officer as the truth or the whole truth. (iii) pon registration of an FIR a criminal "case" comes into existence and that case is to be assigned a number and such case carries the same number till the final decision of the matter. (iv) uring the investigation conducted after registration of an FIR the investigating officer may record any number of versions of the same incident brought to his notice by different persons which versions are to be recorded by him under section 161, Cr.P.C. in the same case. No separate FIR is to be recorded for any new version of the same incident brought to the notice of the investigating officer during the investigation of the case. (v) uring the investigation the investigating officer is obliged to investigate the matter from all possible angles while keeping in view all the versions of the incident brought to his notice and, as required by Rule 25.2(3) of the Police Rules, 1934 "It is the duty of an investigating officer to find out the truth of the matter under investigation. His object shall be to discover the actual facts of the case and to arrest the real offender or offenders. He shall not commit himself prematurely to any view of the facts for or against any person." (vi) rdinarily no person is to be arrested straightaway only because he has been nominated as an accused person in an FIR or in any other version of the incident brought to the notice of the investigating officer by any person until the investigating officer feels satisfied that sufficient justification exists for his arrest and for such justification he is to be guided by the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and the Police Rules, 1934. According to the relevant provisions of the said Code and the Rules a suspect is not to be arrested straightaway or as a matter of course and, unless the situation on the ground so warrants, the arrest is to be deferred till such time that sufficient material or evidence becomes available on the record of investigation prima facie satisfying the investigating officer regarding correctness of the allegations levelled against such suspect or regarding his involvement in the crime in issue. (vii) Upon conclusion of the investigation the report to be submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C is to be based upon the actual facts discovered during the investigation irrespective of the version of the incident advanced by the first informant or any other version brought to the notice of the investigating officer by any other person. 28. As an FIR had been registered in the present case regarding the same occurrence and the offences allegedly committed therein and upon completion of the investigation of the case a Challan had been submitted before the trial court and as the present petitioner had instituted a private complaint depicting her version of the same incident and after summoning of the accused persons nominated there in a trial is already in progress in connection with that private complaint, therefore, ordering registration of another FIR
---
## Page 7
based upon the petitioner's version of that very incident is not legally warranted. This petition is, thus, dismissed." 20. Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan while discussing the issue of second FIR in case of Sughra Bibi (Supra) has placed reliance upon plethora of judgments rendered by itself, whereby it was held time and again that second FIR was not permitted in respect of the same incident. However, has further laid down that investigating officer may record a number of versions of the same incident brought to his notice by different persons in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C and no separate FIR is to be recorded for any new version in respect of the same incident brought to the notice of the investigating officer during investigation of such crime. Thus, issue of registration of second FIR stood settled; hence, second FIR cannot be registered for the same incident. 21. The Honorable Supreme Court while passing the judgment in Sughran Bibi case supra took judicial review of the case of Mirza v. The S.H.O. (1982 PCr.LJ 171), the case of Abdul Ghani v. S.H.O., P.S. Saddar, Sheikhupura and others (1983 PCr.LJ 2172), the case of Muhammad Ibrahim v. S.H.O. Police Station Mansehra and another (PLD 1983 Pesh. 229), the case of `Halim Sarwar v. S.H.O., Police Station Headmarala and 2 others (1984 PCr.LJ 2993), the case of Fateh Sher v. S.H.O etc. (1985 PCr.LJ 151), the case of Karim Bibi v. Station House Officer, Police Station Rajana (Faisalabad) and others (1985 PCr.LJ 213), the case of Ghulam Hussain v. Siraj-ul-Haq and others (1987 PCr.LJ…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.