IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
( Appellate Jurisdiction ) 
 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, CJ  
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR  
MR. JUSTICE AMIR HANI MUSLIM  
MR. JUSTICE IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN  
MR. JUSTICE KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN 
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 424 OF 2015 
(on appeal from the judgment of the High 
Court 
of 
Balochistan, 
Quetta 
dated 
20.08.2015 passed in Crl. Misc. Quashment 
No.42 of 2010) 
 
Ali Muhammad & others  
 
…Appellants 
 
VERSUS  
Syed Bibi and others 
 
 
…Respondents 
 
 
For the Appellant:  
Mr. Zulfiqar Ahmed Bhutta, ASC. 
 
For the State: 
 
Mr. Ayaz Khan Swati, Addl. AG, Balochistan.  
 
 
 
Date of Hearing:  
22.02.2016. 
JUDGMENT  
 
 
Anwar Zaheer Jamali, CJ.— Through this appeal by leave 
of the Court, the appellants have invoked jurisdiction of this Court 
against the judgment dated 20.08.2015 in Criminal Miscellaneous 
Quashment No.42 of 2010, passed by learned Division Bench of the 
High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, whereby quashment petition of 
Respondent No.1 under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) against the order 
dated 15.07.2010 passed by Sessions Judge Pishin as Justice of Peace 
on an application under Section 22-A Cr.P.C. was accepted; 
consequently,  order dated 15.07.2010 was set aside with direction to 
Respondent No.2 to register the FIR against the appellants for causing 
murder of Hafiz Muhammad Jan. 
Cr.A 424/2015                           -2- 
 
2. 
 
Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that Respondent 
No.1, Syed Bibi wife of Khatak, had moved an application under Section 
22-A Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR against the appellants with the 
averments that she was a widow, residing in Kuchlak with her son, 
Hafiz Muhammad Jan, who was the only earning member of her family. 
During an exchange of fire between levies and some unknown persons, 
her son was hit by a bullet on his leg, whereupon people gathered on 
the spot and began protesting. The levies started aerial firing due to 
which the unknown persons fled away from the scene. Thereafter, the 
levies took her injured son with them and she found out the next day 
that her son had succumbed to the injuries and his dead body was 
lying in the Civil Hospital Quetta.  
3. 
 
Regarding this incident, an FIR was earlier lodged with 
misleading and incorrect statement of facts, therefore, she filed an 
application under Section 22-A Cr.P.C. before the Justice of 
Peace/Sessions Judge Pishin with the following assertions:- 
“2. 
That her deceased son Haifz Muhammad Jan 
alongwith her nephew namely Abdul Wali have left the 
house to go to their relatives living in Killi Nilli, Bostan 
after offering Asar prayer at about 06:00 p.m., when on 
Kuchlack road there was a cross firing between levies 
personnel with some unknown persons, therefore, 
number of people were gathered nearby, and his son 
and nephew also parked their motorcycle and were 
standing with other people, when from the levies side a 
bullet came which hit Hafiz Muhammad Jan on his leg, 
meanwhile other party has made their escape good and 
her nephew Abdul Wali and their other tribes man 
gather on the spot, have protested for injuring Hafiz 
Muhammad Jan, while the assailants on quite opposite 
site of the people, where the deceased was standing, 
which turned into scuffle on the spot with levies and 
other people, the levies personnel were provoked and 
were shouting that their Risaldar has been injured and 
assailants 
who escaped 
were relative of Hafiz 
Muhammad Jan, therefore, they will not spare him on 
saying so, they have started aerial firing to disburse the 
public and took Hafiz Muhammad Jan in injured 
condition and thrown him into their pickup on which 
Abdul Wali rushed towards them and protested for 
Cr.A 424/2015                           -3- 
 
cruel and inhuman attitude with an injured person 
levies personnel already provoked have started beating 
Abdul Wali and also took him and boarded him into 
vehicle, while at that time levies personnel namely (1)Ali 
Muhammad s/o Habibullah, Aaffadar levies Bostan 
(2)Feroz 
Jumadar 
levies 
Bostan, 
(3) 
Yousaf 
(4) 
Muhammad Mir (5) Mohd Amin s/o Sagzai Khasadar 
levies (6) Mohd Sadiq s/o Dad Khan (7) Anwar (8) Abdul 
Hameed s/o Abdul Rasheed, all levies personnel have 
been identified on the spot. 
3. 
That on the fateful night the mother of deceased 
went to levies police station, where she had been 
informed that her injured son and nephew both have 
been sent to Pishin, thus, on said night the widow of an 
advanced age had thricely travel between Kuchlak 
Bostan and Pishin, and finally she was told by levies 
personnels in Civil Hospital Pishin that her son has 
been succumbed to his injuries and his dead body is 
transmitted to the Quetta Hospital, on next morning the 
mother of deceased reached to Civil Hospital at 6:00 
a.m. morning and on her quarries the staff in casualty 
department told her that some dead body has been 
brought but same could not been handed to her without 
permission of levis Bostan, the whole day an old lady 
was sitting in front of morgue causality, meanwhile her 
few relatives have also reached to hospital and started 
protesting and demanded the dead body, when police 
personnel at the spot have informed the levies line 
Queta at about 11:30 a.m. the Naib Tehsildar came, in 
initially creating unnecessary hurdles under the garb of 
interrogation, but after confirming from his high officials 
had agreed to handover the dead body…” 
 
4. 
 
This application was, however, dismissed by the learned 
Sessions Judge Pishin vide his order dated 15.07.2010. Respondent 
No.1 then filed C.P. 513/2010 under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. before High 
Court of Balochistan, which was heard, converted into Criminal Misc. 
Quashment No.42 of 2010,  and allowed vide impugned judgment dated 
20.08.2015; thereby directing the concerned official (Naib Tehsildar 
Bostan) to get the FIR of the incident registered, inter alia, for the 
following reasons: 
“14. Considering 
the 
facts 
and 
the 
attending 
circumstances of the instant case, two distinct and 
opposite versions have come on record, wherein manner 
of the occurrence, place of occurrence and other details 
are not only different, but are also opposite to each 
other. Therefore, interest of justice as well as fair 
investigation demands that a separate FIR on the basis 
Cr.A 424/2015                           -4- 
 
of application of the petitioner should be recorded and 
investigated upon, so that both the versions may be 
placed before the Court who will then be in a position to 
determine and adjudicate upon as to which of the 
version is wholly or partly correct and which of the 
accused persons are guilty and liable to conviction. 
 
15. 
In the referred case of ‘Mohammad Azam’ it has 
been held that where a different, opposite or a cross 
version is put forth by the complainant which discloses 
commission of cognizable offence, second FIR is not 
barred 
In the case of ‘Humayun Khan’ it has been held 
that recording of second FIR depends upon the facts of 
each case and the matter is to be seen in the context of 
totality of the circumstances and allegations” 
 
5. 
 
We have heard arguments of the learned ASC for the 
appellants. He contended that indeed there is no specific prohibition 
under the provisions of Cr.P.C. which precludes registration of another 
FIR with respect to the same incident; nevertheless, depending upon 
the facts and circumstances of each case, such practice has been 
deprecated particularly when the proceedings in a criminal case arising 
out of earlier FIR have reached at an advanced stage; however, this 
important legal aspect has not been duly taken into consideration by 
the High Court in its impugned judgment. He, however, could not refer 
to any case law in support of his argument that registration of another 
FIR is unwarranted by any specific provision of law. 
6. 
 
The learned Additional Advocate General Balochistan in his 
submissions did not oppose findings of the High Court of Balochistan in 
the impugned judgment. He referred to before us the judgments in the 
cases of Wajid Ali Khan Durani and others v. Government of Sindh and 
others (2001 SCMR 1556) and Mst. Anwar Begum v. Station House 
Officer, Police Station Kalri West, Karachi and 12 others (PLD 2005 SC 
297), which lay down a general principle in this regard as under: 
“no definite rule could be laid down barring the 
registration of another F.I.R. when a different version of 
the same occurrence is given by an aggrieved party. 
Cr.A 424/2015                           -5- 
 
Moreover, any direction to the police to record another 
F.I.R. would depend on the facts and circumstances of 
each case, however, refusal to record/register a 
genuine version of the same occurrence is unwarranted 
in law.”  
 
7. 
 
In another earlier case Kaura v. The State and others (1983 
SCMR 436) while dismissing the CPLA, the Court had suggested the 
aggrieved party to move the High Court for review of its order regarding 
registration of another FIR with the observation that the police was not 
only competent but also duty bound to unearth the true facts and trace 
the real culprits while conducting investigation of the crime. This 
judgment was taken into notice in the case of Mst. Anwar Begum 
(supra) but not commented upon, while in the other case of Wajid Ali 
Khan Durani (supra) similar contention of the learned counsel was 
repelled as being misconceived. It was further held that in the 
circumstances discussed, the learned High Court correctly appreciated 
the view expressed in several other cases of the superior Courts for 
giving direction to register another FIR.   
8. 
 
We have considered submissions of the learned ASC for the 
appellants on short controversy involved in the matter relating to 
registration of another FIR. In the instant case, perusal of contents of 
the earlier FIR lodged at the instance of Ali Muhammad Defedar Levies 
on 09.06.2010 and the contents of other FIR lodged by Respondent 
No.1 on 27.08.2015, in terms of the impugned judgment, reveals two 
entirely different and conflicting stories about the actual occurrence. It 
is, thus, obvious that in case prosecution leads its evidence on the basis 
of contents of earlier FIR and the investigation made on that basis, then 
from no stretch of imagination the grievance of Respondent No.1, 
attributing criminal liability of whole occurrence to the complainant and 
his party (“the appellants” herein), could be considered or adjudicated 
Cr.A 424/2015                           -6- 
 
upon by the Court. In such circumstances, considering the allegations 
of Respondent No.1 about mala fide of the complainant in the earlier 
FIR so as to exonerate himself from the liability of Qatl-i-amd of her son, 
followed by distorted and collusive investigation, the impugned 
judgment of the High Court directing registration of another FIR seems 
fully justified and in accordance with law, wherein no specific bar or 
prohibition is provided in this regard. The two cases referred to by the 
learned Additional Advocate General Balochistan in support of the 
impugned judgment also fully support this view.  
9. 
 
The whole gambit of controversy in hand revolves around 
the import and application of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. hence for ready 
reference it will be useful to reproduce the same as under: 
“154. Information in cognizable cases.—Every 
information relating to the commission of a cognizable 
offence if given orally to an officer-in-charge of a police 
station, shall be reduced in writing by him or under his 
direction and be read over to the informant; and every 
such information, whether given in writing or reduced to 
writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person 
given it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a 
book to be kept by such officer in such form as the 
Provincial Government may prescribe in this behalf.” 
10. 
 
As could be seen from the plain reading of above 
reproduced provision of law, the requirement of Section 154 Cr.P.C. is 
to enter every information of commission of a cognizable offence, 
whether given orally or in writing to the officer-in-charge of the police 
station, which shall then be reduced into writing and signed by the 
person giving it and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to 
be kept by such officer in the form prescribed by the Provincial 
Government in this behalf. Meaning thereby, that it is not a legal 
requirement for provider of such information to canvass the whole 
scene of occurrence of a cognizable offence giving description and 
details of accused, details of weapons used by them, their specific role, 
motive behind the occurrence, and the names of eye witnesses etc. But 
it is a matter of common experience that usually the entries made in 
Section 154 Cr.P.C. book, as per practice, contain invariably all such 
details so much so that in the ordinary parlance/sense it is considered 
as the gist of the prosecution case against the accused. In such state of 
affairs, if a collusive, mala fide or concocted FIR, registered at the 
instance of some individual with some ulterior motive, is taken as 
sacrosanct, it is likely to divert the whole course of investigation in a 
wrong direction and spoil the entire prosecution case on that premise. 
The Court while considering the crucial point of registration of another 
FIR cannot remain oblivious of these ground realities so as to non-suit 
Cr.A 424/2015                           -7- 
 
the aggrieved party from agitating his grievance in an honest manner, 
or ensure regulating proper investigation of a crime in the right 
direction, or apprehend the real culprits and brought them before the 
Court of law for justice. 
 
11. 
 
Though our criminal legal system proceeds on the 
presumption of honest, God fearing and fair police officers, impartial 
and honest investigation system, but this is far from reality in the 
society we live in.  In such circumstances when the Courts feel that due 
to mala fide, dishonest, colourful and motivated acts or omissions, 
entire investigation of the crime has been mislead or it is going to be 
misled and on that account the case of the prosecution is likely to fail, 
then they are not denuded of their powers to order recording of another 
FIR disclosing a different version to check such nefarious design meant 
to 
save 
the 
real 
culprits 
vis-a-vis 
misleading 
the 
investigation/prosecution, at any appropriate stage of the proceedings. 
However, where need be, such powers are to be exercised with extreme 
care and caution and not in a routine manner so as to merely fulfill the 
wish of an individual who, as per his whims, is not satisfied either with 
the contents of earlier FIR or the direction of investigation based 
thereon or wants registration of another FIR with some ulterior motive. 
It is more so important in the circumstances when the procedure of 
direct complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is also provided to meet 
such eventualities. However, it may be clarified here that there may be 
circumstances where registration of another FIR will be the only proper 
course as adopting the alternate course provided in Section 200 Cr.P.C. 
may not be equally efficacious and effective for the aggrieved person. 
The case law on the subject, which has been referred to above, lend 
support to the view that provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C. are to be read 
in a pragmatic, holistic and realistic manner in order to ensure that its 
true spirit and object is achieved and it is not abused at the hands of 
Cr.A 424/2015                           -8- 
 
individuals or police, who may be adamant to make mockery of this 
system. It is for these reasons that no definite principle can be laid 
down barring the registration of another FIR.  
12. 
 
It is unfortunate to note that in the instant case due to one- 
sided version disclosed in earlier FIR No.17/2010, the investigating 
agency never bothered to look into the crime from another angle as 
narrated in the other FIR dated 27.08.2015, which means that as per 
assertions of Respondent No.1, the alleged culprits could have 
otherwise escaped from their criminal liability successfully at the very 
initial stage without even being charged for the offence on the basis of 
misleading contents of earlier FIR. The short and long of the above 
discussion is that the impugned judgment of the Balochistan High 
Court warrants no interference.  
13. 
 
In view of the above, this appeal was dismissed vide short 
order of even date, which reads as under: 
“We have heard arguments of the learned ASC as 
well 
as 
learned 
Additional 
Advocate 
General 
Balochistan. For reasons to follow separately, this 
appeal is dismissed.”  
 
 
    Chief Justice 
 
Judge  
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge  
 
 
Judge 
ISLAMABAD. 
22nd February, 2016. 
Mudassar/ 

“Approved for reporting.” 
