11/1/24, 2:45 AM 2024 S C M R 985

2024 S C M R 985
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Munib Akhtar and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ
MUNAWAR ALAM KHAN---Petitioner
Versus
QURBAN ALI MALLANO and others---Respondents
Criminal Petition No.31-K of 2022, decided on 8th April, 2024.
(Against the order dated 14.02.2022, passed by the High Court of Sindh, Bench at
Sukkur in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.S-644 of 2020).
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----Ss. 22-A & 22-B---Misuse of provisions of sections 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C.---It is
the prime duty of the Court that such misuse be taken care of and an application
filed under 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C. should not be lightly entertained and decided in a
mechanical manner for issuing direction to the police to lodge an FIR, conduct
investigation in the matter and prosecute the accused.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----Ss. 22-A & 22-B---Application filed under sections 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C---Mala
fide of applicant---In the present case both the parties to the lis belonged to the
legal fraternity and were contesting bar elections on yearly basis against each other-
--Animosity amongst them was an admitted fact---In earlier elections both the
groups had resorted to a brawl---Allegation levelled against the respondent
(accused) was that on his instigation the co-accused had committed the offence---
Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioner (applicant) admitted that the
respondent (accused) was not present when the occurrence took place---Even
otherwise from the comments filed by medical officer before the trial Court, it had
been found that he had provided treatment to the petitioner but no medical
certificate was issued in this regard on the ground that the petitioner had failed to
furnish the police letter---Common culture prevailing within our society and often
chosen by the legal fraternity is to settle disputes by converting them into criminal
prosecution against each other which, was (also) apparent on the record of the
present case owing to cases running in Court inter se the parties---After having
received kicks and fists blows at the hands of the accused and co-accused persons,
the petitioner had remained successful in seeking a direction for lodging an FIR from
the trial Court, whereas another FIR was also lodged against the petitioner in a
similar context by some Advocates of accused/respondents' group---Trial Court had
taken into consideration all material aspects of the matter and rightly dismissed the
application under sections 22-A(6)(1) & 22-B, Cr.P.C. on the ground that the same

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2024S823 1/10
11/1/24, 2:45 AM 2024 S C M R 985

was tainted with mala fide, which order was upheld by the High Court through the
impugned order---Petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was declined.
Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State PLD 2018 SC 595 ref.
Petitioner in person.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 8th April, 2024.
JUDGMENT
SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, J.---Through the captioned petition filed under
Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the
petitioner, who appears in person, has challenged the legality of order dated
14.02.2022 passed by the High Court of Sindh, bench at Sukkur (High Court)
whereby his Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.S-644 of 2020 was dismissed
while maintaining the order dated 21.10.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-
II, Sukkur/Justice of Peace (trial Court) in Criminal Miscellaneous Application
No.2038 of 2019 filed under Sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Facts as per the record are that both the parties to the lis belong to the legal
fraternity and are contesting bar elections on yearly basis against each other. The
animosity amongst them is an admitted fact. In earlier elections both the groups
resorted to a brawl. After the incident, the petitioner approached the police for
lodging an FIR against the accused/respondents but the same was not so done.
3. The applicant in person states that both the Courts below have not taken into
consideration the facts of the case in its true perspective; that the impugned order
suffers from misreading or non-reading, therefore not tenable in the eyes of law;
that while pursuing his application filed under Sections 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C.
before the trial Court, the respondents/accused assaulted him.
4. Having heard the petitioner and scanned the material available on the record,
we observe that there are many precedents regarding misuse of provisions of
Sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. and it is the prime duty of the Court that such
misuse be taken care of and application filed should not be lightly entertained and
decided in a mechanical manner for issuing direction to the police to lodge an FIR,
conduct investigation in the matter and prosecute the accused. It is a settled
principle of law that each and every case is to be decided on its own peculiar facts
and circumstances and inference in this regard can be drawn from the cases
reported as Rai Ashraf and others v. Muhammad Saleem Bhatti and others (PLD
2010 SC 691), Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Muhammad Saleem (1994 SCMR
2213) and The State v. Mushtaq Ahmed (PLD 1973 SC 418).
5. It reflects from the record that before the High Court, a question was asked
from the learned counsel for the petitioner whether respondent No.1, namely Mr.
Qurban Ali Maliano, was present when the occurrence took place, he answered in
the negative. The allegation levelled against respondent No.1 is that on his
instigation respondent No.2, namely Rahib Maliano, who is his brother-in-law, has
committed the offence. Even otherwise from the comments filed by medical officer
before the trial Court, it has been found that he has provided treatment to the

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2024S823 2/10
11/1/24, 2:45 AM 2024 S C M R 985

petitioner but no medical certificate was issued in this regard on the ground that the
petitioner has failed to furnish the police letter.
6. A common culture prevailing with our society and often chosen by the legal
fraternity is to settle the disputes by converting them into criminal prosecution
against each other which, in our candid view, is apparent on the record owing to the
reason that there are other cases running in Court inter se the parties. After having
received kicks and fists blows at the hands of the respondents, the petitioner has
remained successful in seeking a direction for lodging an FIR from the trial Court,
whereas FIR bearing No.98 of 2019 was also lodged against the petitioner in a
similar context by some Advocates of accused/ respondents' group.
7. A larger bench of this Court in the case reported as Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The
State (PLD 2018 SC 595) has elaborately discussed the proposition qua lodging of
an FIR, relevant portions wherefrom in order to resolve the controversy at hand
read as
under:--
"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-incharge 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 giving 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

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2024S823 3/10
11/1/24, 2:45 AM 2024 S C M R 985

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 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 misled 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 trite spirit and object is achieved
and it is not abused at the hands of 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.
15. The confusion prevailing in the matter of registration of multiple FIRs in
respect of the same offence stems from a misunderstanding that an FIR is
the version of the incident reported to the police whereas the legal position
is that an FIR to be registered under section 154, Cr.P.C. is only an
information about commission of a cognizable offence and not an
information about the circumstances in which such offence was committed
or by whom it was committed. If the information supplied to the police not
only reports commission of a cognizable offence but also contains a story as
to how and by whom the offence was committed then such further
information is just a version of the informant and during the investigation
the investigating officer is free to entertain any number of versions
advanced by any number of persons and it is his duty "to discover the actual
facts of the case and to arrest the real offender or offenders. He shall not

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2024S823 4/10
11/1/24, 2:45 AM 2024 S C M R 985

commit himself prematurely to any view of the facts for or against any
person" as mandated by Rule 25.2(3) of the Police Rules, 1934 reproduced
above. All subsequent or divergent versions of the same occurrence or the
persons involved therein are to be received, recorded and investigated by the
investigating officer in the same "case" which is based upon the one and
only FIR registered in respect of the relevant "offence" in the prescribed
book kept at the local police station.
16. Now we turn to the judgments rendered by this Court so far on the issue of
registration of multiple FIRs in respect of commission of the same
cognizable offence depicting different versions of the same incident. In the
case of Jamshed Ahmad v. Muhamma Akram Khan and another (1975
SCMR 149) this Court had found the High Court to be justified in refusing
to order registration of a second FIR because an FIR already stood
registered in respect of "the same transaction" and the case was already
under investigation.
17. In the case of Kaura v. The State and others (1983 SCMR 436) this Court
had categorically held that a case had already been registered through an
FIR and, therefore, registration of another FIR "was not called for" merely
because the subsequent information supplied to the police contained a
divergent version of the same incident. It was observed by this Court that
"the ball had already been set rolling and the police was not only competent
but also duty bound to unearth the true facts and trace the real culprits."
18. The subsequent case of Wajid Ali Khan Durani and others v. Government of
Sindh and others (2001 SCMR 1556), however, struck a different note and,
therefore, the same requires a close scrutiny. It was alleged in that case that
the two FIRs already registered with the local police in respect of the same
incident "did not reflect the true facts" and, therefore, another FIR ought to
be registered "disclosing the true facts of the incident" and in that backdrop
the High Court had ordered the local police to register a third FIR in respect
of the selfsame incident. When the said order of the High Court was assailed
before this Court it was upheld and maintained simply by observing that
"the learned High Court in the circumstances of the case, was within its
jurisdiction in giving the direction to the police for registering another FIR
at the instance of the aggrieved widows of the deceased. Moreover,
admittedly, since lodging of the third FIR, regular challan has been
submitted in the Court in which the petitioners have been named as accused
persons and the trial is yet to take place." This Court had gone on to observe
that "Similarly, the contention that the learned High Court has not followed
the view expressed by this Court in 1983 SCMR 436 is misconceived, as
perusal of the impugned judgment would also show that in the
circumstances pointed out in the judgment the learned High Court had
correctly appreciated the views expressed in several cases by the superior
Courts including the case referred to by the counsel in giving the direction
for registering another FIR." A careful examination of the said judgment
handed down by this Court shows three things: firstly, it was presumed
without referring to any legal provision, or basis that the High Court had the
jurisdiction to order registration of a third FIR in respect of the same
incident; secondly, the third FIR had already been registered on the basis of

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2024S823 5/10
11/1/24, 2:45 AM 2024 S C M R 985

the impugned order passed by the High Court and upon completion of the
investigation on the basis of the third FIR a Challan had already been
submitted before the trial court for holding a regular trial of the accused
persons implicated through the third FIR; and, thirdly, the judgment passed
by this Court earlier on in the case of Kaura v. The State and others (1983
SCMR 436) had not been correctly appreciated. We understand, and it is
submitted with great respect, that in that case this Court did not feel
persuaded to interfere in the matter primarily because the case had already
reached the trial court after completion of the investigation stage and it was
presumably on account of that development that this Court had paid little
attention to the legal issues involved in registration of multiple FIRs in
respect of the same incident. It thus, appears to us that the said judgment
had proceeded on the basis of its own peculiar facts and, therefore, the same
could not readily be treated as the law declared.
19. The case of Mst. Anwar Begum v. Station House Officer, Police Station
Kalri West, Karachi and 12 others (PLD 2005 SC 297) was a case in which
the High Court had refused to order registration of a second FIR regarding
an incident in respect of which an FIR already stood registered with the
local police but this Court issued such an order. In this case a second FIR
containing a different version was ordered by this Court to be registered
because it was found that "the veracity and truthfulness of FIR lodged by
respondent Muhammad Yousuf the Manager of the Company, became highly
doubtful and the petitioner was right in asking for registration of another
FIR at her own version". The investigation of the case was still in progress
when this Court had observed in that case that the veracity and truthfulness
of the FIR originally registered was "highly doubtful" which observation, it
is submitted with deep reverence, was not only presumptuous but also
premature. Apart from that while issuing an order regarding registration of a
second FIR this Court had referred to the judgment of this Court passed in
the case of Wajid Ali Khan Durani and others v. Government of Sindh and
others (2001 SCMR 1556), it had made no mention of the judgments
rendered by this Court in the cases of Jamshed Ahmad v. Muhammad Akram
Khan and another (1975 SCMR 149) and Kaura v. The State and others
(1983 SCMR 436) and it had placed reliance upon the case of Muhammad
Ishaque v. S.P. Jaffarabad and another (PLJ 1998 Quetta 1) decided by a
High Court. Unfortunately no provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1898 or of the Police Rules, 1934 was discussed in that judgment and as a
matter of fact no discussion of the relevant law had taken place in the said
judgment of this Court at all.
20. The last of the precedent cases from this Court is the case of Ali Muhammad
and others v. Syed Bibi and others (PLD 2016 SC 484) wherein the High
Court had ordered registration of a second FIR containing a different
version of the same incident and this Court had upheld that order of the
High Court. In that judgment this Court had observed in the very beginning
that "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:---". With utmost respect, this Court could have been
more circumspect before making an observation about misleading or
incorrect nature of the facts asserted in the original FIR especially when the
stage of the case was premature and the investigation of the case was still in
progress. This Court had then gone on to notice the case of Kaura v. The

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2024S823 6/10
11/1/24, 2:45 AM 2024 S C M R 985

State and others (1983 SCMR 436) but unfortunately the ratio decidendi of
that case was not even adverted to. It appears that the main consideration
persuading this Court in favour of registration of a second FIR about the
same incident was what was observed in the following paragraph of the
judgment:
"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 upon by the Court.--"
It appears that the Court was not properly assisted on that occasion and it was
erroneously made to understand that the police are to investigate the case
only on the lines asserted in an FIR and then it is to lead evidence before the
trial court only in terms of the accusations made in the FIR. As already
noticed in the preceding paragraphs of the present judgment, the scheme of
the law is totally the opposite of it and according to the same after
commencement of an investigation on the basis of an FIR the investigation
officer is to collect every possible information about the facts and
circumstances of the case, he is to receive or record any information in that
regard becoming available from any source whatsoever, he is not to
prematurely commit himself to any particular version of the incident and
after finding out the actual facts the final report under section 173, Cr.P.C. is
to be submitted not in terms of the allegations levelled in the FIR but in
accordance with the actual facts discovered during the investigation.
..
25. During the course of hearing of this petition we had inquired from the
petitioner as to why she was insisting upon registration, of a separate FIR in
respect of her version of the incident especially when she had already
instituted a private complaint containing her version of the incident and the
accused persons in her private complaint had already been summoned by the
trial court to face a trial and a Charge had been framed against them. In
response to that query the petitioner had categorically stated that she wanted
the accused persons in her version of the incident to be arrested and
recoveries to be affected from them which was not possible through the
medium of a private complaint. Such understanding of the law on the part of
the petitioner, which understanding is also shared by a large section of the
legal community in our country, has been found by us to be erroneous and
fallacious. By virtue of the provisions of section 202(1), Cr.P.C. a court
seized of a private complaint can "direct an inquiry or investigation to be
made by any Justice of the Peace or by a police officer or by such other

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2024S823 7/10
11/1/24, 2:45 AM 2024 S C M R 985

person as it thinks fit". If in a given case the court seized of a private

complaint deems it appropriate to direct an investigation lo be carried out in
respect of the allegations made then the powers available during an
investigation, enumerated in Part V, Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1898 read with section 4(1)(l) of the same Code, include the
powers to arrest an accused person and to affect recovery from his
possession or at his instance. Such powers of the investigating officer or the
investigating person recognize no distinction between an investigation in a
State case and an investigation in a complaint case.
26. The impression entertained by the petitioner that if a separate FIR is
registered in terms of her version of the incident then the accused persons
nominated by her would automatically be arrested has been found by us to
be not only misconceived but also discomforting. The law does not permit
arrest of a person merely on the basis of a bald allegation levelled against
him.
.
27. As a result of the discussion made above we declare the legal position as
follows:
(i) According 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) If 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) Upon 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) During 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. the same case. No separate FIR
is to be recorded for any version of the same incident brought to the notice
of the investigating officer during the investigation of the case.
(v) During 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

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2024S823 8/10
11/1/24, 2:45 AM 2024 S C M R 985

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) Ordinarily 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 fade 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."
8. Under the circumstances, we are clear in our mind that the trial Court has
taken into consideration all material aspects of the matter, either legal or factual,
and has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Sections
22A(6)(1) and 22-B, Cr.P.C. on the ground that the same is tainted with males fide,
that order has been upheld by the High Court through the impugned order. The
petitioner has failed to persuade us to interfere in the well-reasoned orders passed
by the fora below.
9. No misreading or non-reading as well as infirmity or illegality on the record
has been noticed. Consequently, the petition being bereft of merit is dismissed.
Leave to appeal is declined.
MWA/M-13/SC Petition dismissed.

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2024S823 9/10
11/1/24, 2:45 AM 2024 S C M R 985

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2024S823 10/10