PLJ 2009 Lahore 485
Present: S. Ali Hassan Rizvi, J.
LIAQAT ALI--Petitioner
versus
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE--Respondent
W.P. No. 3450 of 2009, decided on 23.2.2009.
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--
----Art. 199--Constitutional petition--Ex-officio Justice of Peace--SHO was directed to record version--Meticulous precautions--Recording of second FIR--Jurisdiction--Murder case--Petitioner got registered FIR for murder of his wife against accused persons--Application before Ex-officio Justice of Peace alleged therein that petitioner in collusion with police has got lodged FIR against facts whereas he alongwith other accused (named in application) are real accused for murdering of her daughter--Ex-officio Justice of Peace directed SHO concerned to record revision of respondent and to proceed in accordance with law--In presence of an FIR in respect of same occurrence second FIR cannot be lodged and it was not appropriate for Ex-officio Justice of Peace to order for registration of same--When earlier petitioner had become complainant in FIR, he took meticulous precautions--When second FIR has lawfully been directed to be recorded at instance of mother of deceased (respondent) giving altogether a different version, there may be nothing wrong with it--No illegality in exercise of jurisdiction by Ex-officio Justice of Peace calling for interference--Petition dismissed in limine. [Pp. 486 & 487] A, B & C
2007 P.Cr.L.J 1532, rel.
S. Sheharyar Khan, Advocate for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 23.2.2009.
Order
The instant writ petition is filed against the order dated 11.02.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge as Ex-officio Justice of Peace whereby on the application of Respondent No. 4, the SHO concerned was directed to record version of the respondent above-said and to proceed in accordance with law.
2. According to the application the daughter of Respondent
No. 4 Mst. Khalida Bibi was married with petitioner and he in order to grab her agricultural land had been insisting upon and in the night in between 15/16.12.2008 along with his co-accused committed her murder. Further alleged therein that the petitioner in collusion with the police has got lodged the FIR against the facts whereas he alongwith other accused named in the application are the real accused for murdering of her daughter.
3. Learned counsel argued that already FIR No. 483/08 on his statement stands registered against other accused persons for the murder of his wife Mst. Khalida for the motive that one Muhammad Ayub had demanded the agricultural land of his wife to be transferred in his name; that one of the accused namely Ashiq alias Samran son of Liaqat Ali has got recorded his confessional statement and he alongwith other co-accused has committed her murder. In the view of the learned counsel in the presence of an FIR in respect of the same occurrence the second FIR cannot be lodged and it was not appropriate for the learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace to order for registration of the same.
4. Mst. Muhammad Bibi-Respondent No. 4 is the real mother of the deceased Mst. Khalida Bibi. According to the allegation contained in the application moved by Respondent No. 4 for registration of the case, the present petitioner Liaqat Ali treating his wife Khalida deceased as a tutelage in his hand, goading her to transfer her agricultural land in his name. However, she was extremely reluctant. It was allegedly for this reason that the petitioner along with co-accused had done her to death. In the relevant application details and reasons for the occurrence were given. The poor lady was done to death by causing sharp edged weapon injuries. When earlier the petitioner had cleverly become complainant in FIR No. 483/08, he took meticulous precautions and in order to crown his mischief, got recorded the statement of Muhammad Ayub accused. When it was a case of direct evidence, there was no occasion of getting the statement of Muhammad Ayub recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. His statement having not been recorded in the presence of the accused, would have its own ramifications in terms of Section 164, Cr.P.C. Be that as it may now when second FIR has lawfully been directed to be recorded at the instance of Respondent No. 4 giving altogether a different version, there may be nothing wrong with it. Recording of second FIR in the peculiar circumstances like the ones here, was permissible. D.B. ruling reported as Allah Yar v. S.H.O. (2007 P.Cr.LJ. 1352) may be aptly followed. In my view, there is no illegality in exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace calling for interference in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed in-limine.
(Sh.A.S.) Petition dismissed
Present: S. Ali Hassan Rizvi, J.
LIAQAT ALI--Petitioner
versus
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE--Respondent
W.P. No. 3450 of 2009, decided on 23.2.2009.
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--
----Art. 199--Constitutional petition--Ex-officio Justice of Peace--SHO was directed to record version--Meticulous precautions--Recording of second FIR--Jurisdiction--Murder case--Petitioner got registered FIR for murder of his wife against accused persons--Application before Ex-officio Justice of Peace alleged therein that petitioner in collusion with police has got lodged FIR against facts whereas he alongwith other accused (named in application) are real accused for murdering of her daughter--Ex-officio Justice of Peace directed SHO concerned to record revision of respondent and to proceed in accordance with law--In presence of an FIR in respect of same occurrence second FIR cannot be lodged and it was not appropriate for Ex-officio Justice of Peace to order for registration of same--When earlier petitioner had become complainant in FIR, he took meticulous precautions--When second FIR has lawfully been directed to be recorded at instance of mother of deceased (respondent) giving altogether a different version, there may be nothing wrong with it--No illegality in exercise of jurisdiction by Ex-officio Justice of Peace calling for interference--Petition dismissed in limine. [Pp. 486 & 487] A, B & C
2007 P.Cr.L.J 1532, rel.
S. Sheharyar Khan, Advocate for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 23.2.2009.
Order
The instant writ petition is filed against the order dated 11.02.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge as Ex-officio Justice of Peace whereby on the application of Respondent No. 4, the SHO concerned was directed to record version of the respondent above-said and to proceed in accordance with law.
2. According to the application the daughter of Respondent
No. 4 Mst. Khalida Bibi was married with petitioner and he in order to grab her agricultural land had been insisting upon and in the night in between 15/16.12.2008 along with his co-accused committed her murder. Further alleged therein that the petitioner in collusion with the police has got lodged the FIR against the facts whereas he alongwith other accused named in the application are the real accused for murdering of her daughter.
3. Learned counsel argued that already FIR No. 483/08 on his statement stands registered against other accused persons for the murder of his wife Mst. Khalida for the motive that one Muhammad Ayub had demanded the agricultural land of his wife to be transferred in his name; that one of the accused namely Ashiq alias Samran son of Liaqat Ali has got recorded his confessional statement and he alongwith other co-accused has committed her murder. In the view of the learned counsel in the presence of an FIR in respect of the same occurrence the second FIR cannot be lodged and it was not appropriate for the learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace to order for registration of the same.
4. Mst. Muhammad Bibi-Respondent No. 4 is the real mother of the deceased Mst. Khalida Bibi. According to the allegation contained in the application moved by Respondent No. 4 for registration of the case, the present petitioner Liaqat Ali treating his wife Khalida deceased as a tutelage in his hand, goading her to transfer her agricultural land in his name. However, she was extremely reluctant. It was allegedly for this reason that the petitioner along with co-accused had done her to death. In the relevant application details and reasons for the occurrence were given. The poor lady was done to death by causing sharp edged weapon injuries. When earlier the petitioner had cleverly become complainant in FIR No. 483/08, he took meticulous precautions and in order to crown his mischief, got recorded the statement of Muhammad Ayub accused. When it was a case of direct evidence, there was no occasion of getting the statement of Muhammad Ayub recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. His statement having not been recorded in the presence of the accused, would have its own ramifications in terms of Section 164, Cr.P.C. Be that as it may now when second FIR has lawfully been directed to be recorded at the instance of Respondent No. 4 giving altogether a different version, there may be nothing wrong with it. Recording of second FIR in the peculiar circumstances like the ones here, was permissible. D.B. ruling reported as Allah Yar v. S.H.O. (2007 P.Cr.LJ. 1352) may be aptly followed. In my view, there is no illegality in exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace calling for interference in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed in-limine.
(Sh.A.S.) Petition dismissed
No comments:
Post a Comment