2026 P Cr. L J 715

 2026 P Cr. L J 715

[Sindh (Hyderabad Bench)]

Before Jan Ali Junejo, J

JAM KALOI---Applicant

Versus

The STATE and 9 others---Respondents

Criminal Revision Application No. S-59 of 2023, decided on 26th

August, 2025.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----Ss. 22-A, 22-B, 154, 161 & 173---One-occurrence-one-FIR, principle

of---Powers of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace---Application for the

registration of second FIR declined by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace---

Legality---Complainant-applicant alleged that accused persons

committed murder of his brother but local police was not inclined to

lodge the FIR against nominated accused due to political pressure---

Applicant approached the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace seeking

appropriate directions---During pendency of proceedings, FIR was

registered by SHO under S.302, P.P.C against unknown persons---

Applicant sought directions for registration of FIR against the

nominated accused persons---However, the Ex-Officio Justice of

Peace dismissed the application, holding that once FIR had already

been registered regarding the incident, a second FIR could not be

lodged and that the applicant s version could be incorporated

during investigation---Validity---Perusal of the record revealed that

the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace duly observed that FIR had already

been lodged by SHO/Inspector on behalf of the State under S.302,

P.P.C., against unknown persons, in respect of the incident in

question---On the settled principle of one-occurrence-one-FIR, no

direction could be issued for a second FIR---However, it was

observed that the applicant was not remediless, his version could be

placed before the Investigating Officer to be incorporated under

S.161 Cr.P.C., and duly reflected in the police report under S.173

Cr.P.C.---All versions, whether advanced by the accused, the

complainant, or any other person, must be duly incorporated by the

Investigating Officer during the course of investigation---

Investigating Officer was under a statutory obligation to record all

statements under S.161, Cr.P.C., and to collect all relevant material

with a view to discovering the truth---Rule 25.2(3) of the Police

Rules, 1934, likewise emphasized that the purpose of investigation

was not to support a preconceived version of events, but to

ascertain the actual facts of the case with complete impartiality Criminal law does not permit multiplicity of FIRs in respect of the

same incident---Allowing registration of multiple FIRs would not

only open the door for abuse of process and harassment of the

accused but would also create practical complications for

investigation and trial---Two parallel investigations on the same

incident, possibly reaching divergent conclusions, would severely

compromise the fairness and credibility of the justice system---In the

present case, FIR already covered the occurrence---Applicant's

grievance was essentially that his perspective had not been fairly

reflected---Ex-Officio Justice of Peace rightly declined to direct

registration of a second FIR, but correctly safeguarded the

applicant's rights by allowing him to approach the Investigating

Officer for incorporation of his version---Such approach ensured

that the applicant was not deprived of justice, while at the same

time protecting the integrity of criminal procedure from the

mischief of multiple FIRs---Interference in revision was justified

only where an order suffered from illegality, material irregularity,

or perversity---Impugned order was consistent with binding

precedent and contained a balanced approach that respects both

statutory command and individual rights---Therefore,no

interference warranted---Criminal revision application was

dismissed, accordingly.

Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State PLD 2018 SC 595 rel.

Syed Tariq Ahmed Shah and Ammar Ahmed for Applicant.

Ishrat Ali Lohar and Muhammad Jameel Ahmed for Respondents

Nos. 4 to 10.

Ms. Sana Memon, A.P.G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 26th August, 2025.

JUDGMENT

JAN ALI JUNEJO, J.---This Criminal Revision Application, filed under

Sections 435 and 439, Cr.P.C., assails the legality of the Order dated

03.04.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Order ) passed by

the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace / Ist Additional Sessions Judge,

Badin, whereby the applicant s request for registration of a second FIR

in respect of the same occurrence was declined. The applicant insists

that a separate cognizable offence was made out on his narration, and

that denial of a fresh FIR has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

2. The brief facts, as narrated in Criminal Misc. Application No. 454

of 2023 under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C., filed by the Applicant, Jam Kaloi

son of Manak Kaloi, are that on 21.03.2023, at about 6:30 p.m., the

deceased, Miandad son of Manak Kaloi, brother of the Applicant, was present at his agricultural land near the watercourse when the

proposed accused along with co-accused, armed with firearms and

hatchets, arrived, abused him, and, on the instigation of accused Ali

Ghulam, co-accused Ghulam Rasool fired upon him with a repeater.

The deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to them at Hyderabad

Hospital on 22.03.2023. Despite completion of medico-legal formalities

and availability of supporting documentary evidence, the concerned

SHO, allegedly acting under the influence of the accused and local

politicians, refused to register the FIR. This compelled the Applicant

and his relatives to stage a protest with the dead body outside the

police station, which was also covered by the media. However, despite

senior police officials being aware, no FIR was lodged. Consequently,

the Applicant approached the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace

seeking appropriate directions. During pendency of proceedings, FIR

No. 27 of 2023 was registered by SHO/Inspector Ameer Bukhsh Khoso

on behalf of the State at Police Station Tando Bago under Section 302,

P.P.C., against unknown persons. The Applicant sought directions for

registration of an FIR against the nominated persons. However, vide

order dated 03.04.2023, the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace

dismissed the application, holding that once an FIR had already been

registered regarding the incident, a second FIR could not be lodged

and that the Applicant s version could be incorporated during

investigation.

3. Learned counsel for the Applicant contended that the impugned

order dated 03.04.2023 is perverse, suffers from material

irregularities, and has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It was argued

that the police deliberately registered FIR No.27 of 2023 against

unknown persons, despite the Applicant s prompt complaint naming

the actual culprits, thereby shielding them from prosecution. It was

further submitted that the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace failed to

appreciate that the Applicant is an eye-witness, entitled to have his

version recorded in the FIR itself, not merely in a subsequent

statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Counsel, therefore, prayed that the

Criminal Revision Application be allowed, the impugned order be set

aside, and the SHO be directed to register FIR as per Applicant s

verbatim.

4. Conversely, learned counsel for Respondents Nos.4 to 10

submitted that the impugned order is lawful, well-reasoned, and in

consonance with the binding precedent of the Honourable Supreme

Court, particularly PLD 2018 SC 595, which categorically hold that

there can be no second FIR for the same occurrence. It was contended

that all versions of an incident must be recorded by the Investigating

Officer during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and the

Applicant s grievance can be redressed therein. Counsel further argued that the Criminal Revision Application is frivolous and filed

only to pressurize the proposed accused. He prayed for dismissal of

the same with costs.

5. Learned A.P.G. supported the impugned order and adopted the

arguments of Respondents Nos.4 to 10. She submitted that the

revisional jurisdiction of this Court is confined to correcting glaring

illegalities or jurisdictional defects, which are absent in the present

case. She argued that the impugned order of the learned Ex-Officio

Justice of Peace is in line with the settled law that prohibits

multiplicity of FIRs and safeguards all parties by directing the

Investigating Officer to incorporate supplementary versions under

Section 161 Cr.P.C. She, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Criminal

Revision Application being devoid of merit.

6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the Applicant, the learned counsel for Respondents Nos. 4 to

10, and the learned A.P.G. for the State. I have also meticulously

examined the contents of the Impugned Order and the material

available on record. A perusal of the record reveals that the learned Ex-

Officio Justice of Peace duly observed that FIR No. 27 of 2023 had

already been lodged by SHO/Inspector Ameer Bukhsh Khoso on behalf

of the State at Police Station Tando Bago under Section 302, P.P.C.,

against unknown persons, in respect of the incident in question. On the

settled principle of one-occurrence-one-FIR, no direction could be

issued for a second FIR. However, it was observed that the applicant

was not remediless: his version could be placed before the Investigating

Officer to be incorporated under section 161 Cr.P.C., and duly reflected

in the police report under section 173 Cr.P.C. The Honourable Supreme

Court of Pakistan, in the case of Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State (PLD 2018

SC 595), conclusively held that only one FIR shall be registered in

respect of a single occurrence. The Apex Court further observed 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. 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) 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 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 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.

All versions, whether advanced by the accused, the complainant, or

any other person, must be duly incorporated by the Investigating

Officer during the course of investigation. The Investigating Officer is under a statutory obligation to record all statements under Section 161,

Cr.P.C., and to collect all relevant material with a view to discovering

the truth. Rule 25.2(3) of the Police Rules, 1934, likewise emphasizes

that the purpose of investigation is not to support a preconceived

version of events, but to ascertain the actual facts of the case with

complete impartiality. For convenience of reference, Rule 25.2(3) of the

Rules, 1934, is reproduced below:

(3) It is 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 .

Bare reading of the aforesaid provision of law clearly demonstrates

that the primary object of Rule 25.2(3) of the Police Rules, 1934, is to

ensure impartiality and objectivity in the investigative process. It

obligates the Investigating Officer to ascertain the truth by discovering

the actual facts of the case without succumbing to preconceived notions

or biases. The Rule further mandates that the investigation must be

directed towards identifying and apprehending the real offender(s),

while cautioning against any premature commitment to a particular

version of events or presumption of guilt or innocence of any person.

This reflects the fundamental principle that investigation is a fact-

finding exercise, not a means to justify preconceived conclusions.

7. It is a settled principle that criminal law does not permit

multiplicity of FIRs in respect of the same incident. Allowing

registration of multiple FIRs would not only open the door for abuse of

process and harassment of the accused but would also create practical

complications for investigation and trial. Two parallel investigations on

the same incident, possibly reaching divergent conclusions, would

severely compromise the fairness and credibility of the justice system.

The wisdom of Sughran Bibi lies in ensuring both balance and fairness:

while a single FIR suffices to set the criminal law in motion, every

person connected with the occurrence retains the right to have their

version recorded. This strikes at the core of access to justice and

prevents marginalization of any party s perspective. The Investigating

Officer, who is entrusted with the statutory responsibility of discovering

the truth, cannot lawfully ignore or suppress such version. He is bound

to record all statements under section 161 Cr.P.C., collect relevant

evidence, and then place a complete picture before the trial Court under

section 173 Cr.P.C.

8. In the present case, FIR No.27 of 2023 already covers the

occurrence. The applicant s grievance is essentially that his perspective

has not been fairly reflected. The learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace rightly declined to direct registration of a second FIR, but correctly

safeguarded the applicant s rights by allowing him to approach the

Investigating Officer for incorporation of his version. This approach

ensures that the applicant is not deprived of justice, while at the same

time protecting the integrity of criminal procedure from the mischief of

multiple FIRs. Interference in revision is justified only where an order

suffers from illegality, material irregularity, or perversity. The

impugned order is consistent with binding precedent and contains a

balanced approach that respects both statutory command and

individual rights. It therefore warrants no interference.

9. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Revision Application is

dismissed for lack of substantive merit. Nevertheless, in order to

safeguard the applicant s right to a fair investigation, the following

directions are hereby issued:

i. Investigation shall continue strictly within FIR No.27 of 2023 of P.S.

Tando Bago; no second FIR shall be registered.

ii. The concerned Investigating Officer shall record the applicant s

detailed version under section 161 Cr.P.C., along with statements

of any supporting witnesses named by him, within fifteen (15)

days.

iii. A progress report confirming compliance with these directions

shall be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate seized of FIR

No.27 of 2023 within twenty (20) days, to be placed with the case

diary.

JK/J-10/Sindh Revision dismissed.