Application for second FIR on same incident was dismissed
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----Ss. 154, 345, 22-A & 22-B---Second F.I.R., registration of---Scope---F.I.R. for the incident was lodged on the complaint of wife of deceased-victim---Applicant (father-in-law of complainant) filed an application before Justice of Peace for registration of second F.I.R. for the same incident on the plea that wife of deceased (her daughter-in-law) might patch up with the accused and would not pursue the case properly---Justice of Peace dismissed said application---Legality---Applicant's version before Justice of Peace and F.I.R. lodged by wife of deceased were exactly the same regarding name of accused and manner of incident---After registration of F.I.R., investigation was carried out and recovery was effected from the accused and case was pending adjudication---Under S.154, Cr.P.C., information of a cognizable offence mattered and not the informer---Provisions of S.154, Cr.P.C. made it clear that law was to be brought into motion with regard to an incident, hence it was the information of cognizable offence which was thrashed by the law enforcing agency (i.e. police) through course of investigation, thus, two F.I.Rs. in normal course could not prevail---Mother of deceased was also alive, therefore, wife of deceased was not the sole legal heir to compound the offence---Issuing direction for registration of second F.I.R. on the apprehension of applicant would be an abuse of the process of law---Impugned order of Justice of Peace was passed in accordance with law---Application was dismissed accordingly."
2013 P Cr. L J 1883
[Sindh]
Before Salahuddin Panhwar, J
EIDAN KHAN---Applicant
Versus
S.H.O. POLICE STATION KAMBHRA and another---Respondents
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----Ss. 154, 345, 22-A & 22-B---Second F.I.R., registration of---Scope---F.I.R. for the incident was lodged on the complaint of wife of deceased-victim---Applicant (father-in-law of complainant) filed an application before Justice of Peace for registration of second F.I.R. for the same incident on the plea that wife of deceased (her daughter-in-law) might patch up with the accused and would not pursue the case properly---Justice of Peace dismissed said application---Legality---Applicant's version before Justice of Peace and F.I.R. lodged by wife of deceased were exactly the same regarding name of accused and manner of incident---After registration of F.I.R., investigation was carried out and recovery was effected from the accused and case was pending adjudication---Under S.154, Cr.P.C., information of a cognizable offence mattered and not the informer---Provisions of S.154, Cr.P.C. made it clear that law was to be brought into motion with regard to an incident, hence it was the information of cognizable offence which was thrashed by the law enforcing agency (i.e. police) through course of investigation, thus, two F.I.Rs. in normal course could not prevail---Mother of deceased was also alive, therefore, wife of deceased was not the sole legal heir to compound the offence---Issuing direction for registration of second F.I.R. on the apprehension of applicant would be an abuse of the process of law---Impugned order of Justice of Peace was passed in accordance with law---Application was dismissed accordingly."
2013 P Cr. L J 1883
[Sindh]
Before Salahuddin Panhwar, J
EIDAN KHAN---Applicant
Versus
S.H.O. POLICE STATION KAMBHRA and another---Respondents
No comments:
Post a Comment