Facts and procedural history
Mohsin Ali died in police firing on 21 March 2008. A Sub-Inspector registered FIR No. 177 at Police Station Shahdara Town, Lahore.
The police account alleged a murderous assault by Mohsin Ali and others. It said the police returned fire in private defence. An investigation followed and a challan (police report for trial) was submitted.1
His mother, Sughran Bibi, gave a different account: she alleged that police had staged the encounter and killed her son.
She filed a private complaint on 12 January 2010. Sixteen accused were summoned, and a charge was framed on 18 June 2015. The trial then stalled.
She approached the Supreme Court under Article 184(3), seeking a separate FIR recording her version and the arrest of those she accused.2
Competing accounts of the incident
Both accounts require investigation. Neither is presumed correct merely because it was reported.
Issues
Can a different account of the same incident require a second FIR?
If not, how must the police record and investigate it?
And can the persons named in that account be investigated or arrested without a new FIR?3
Holding
One incident generates one case and one FIR. Police must also record and investigate later versions of that incident.
Later versions must be recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Police must investigate every angle and report the facts actually discovered under section 173.
Being named in the FIR, or in a later account, does not by itself justify arrest.4
The Court dismissed the request for another FIR because an FIR, challan and private-complaint trial already existed.
It nevertheless directed completion of the delayed trial within four months and circulation of the judgment to police leadership nationwide.5
Reasoning
Registration under section 154
Section 154 records the first information that a cognizable offence has occurred. It is not a judicial finding that the informant’s account is true.
The Code does not provide a second or third information report simply because another person offers a different version.6
Registration, statements and the police report
- 154Register first information
Register the case. Registration is not a finding of guilt.
- 161Record the other versions
Receive competing accounts and investigate their evidence.
- 173Report what the investigation finds
The report must reflect the facts discovered during investigation, rather than merely repeat the initial account.
Investigation of competing versions
An incident is the occurrence being investigated. A version is someone’s account of it. The distinction determines whether a later account requires a separate case.
Registration opens the case. Any narrative in the FIR remains the informant’s version, including claims about how the offence occurred or who committed it.
The investigating officer may receive any number of accounts from any number of people. All divergent versions belong in the same investigation.
Rule 25.2(3) of the Police Rules requires discovery of the actual facts and identification of the real offenders. The officer must not commit prematurely to a view for or against anyone.7
Grounds for arrest
Multiple FIRs over one occurrence risk parallel arrests, bail proceedings and trials. A single case avoids that duplication without ending the duty to investigate.
Arrest under sections 54 and 55 still requires justification on material. Nomination alone is not enough.
A private complaint also permits investigation. An investigation under section 202(1) carries powers including arrest and recovery.8
Analysis
Conflicting precedents
Earlier decisions differed on the registration of subsequent FIRs.
Kaura, read with Jamshed Ahmad, supported investigating a later version within the existing case. A new account did not require another FIR.
Wajid Ali Khan Durani had upheld a third FIR on unusual facts with little reasoning.
The Larger Bench considered that decision, Mst. Anwar Begum and Ali Muhammad v Syed Bibi departures from the statutory scheme. It attributed the divergence to inadequate assistance on those occasions.9
Risk of investigative bias
The judgment permits multiple accounts to be investigated within a single case.
If investigators favour the first informant, a single case file does not by itself prevent biased investigation.
The safeguard is therefore genuine investigation of every version, not merely refusal to register another FIR.
Nomination and grounds for arrest
A person is accused.
The statutory power needs supporting material.
A private complaint can support an investigation with arrest and recovery powers. A fresh FIR is not required for those powers.
Practical implications
First distinguish the same incident from a genuinely separate transaction. The judgment’s rule is about competing accounts of the same occurrence.
For that occurrence, provide the counter-version in writing and seek its recording under section 161.
Identify concrete steps: witnesses to examine, records to obtain and evidence to test. Later, compare the section 173 report with that material.
A private complaint remains available. The court can direct an investigation with ordinary arrest and recovery powers. But a demand for automatic arrest misreads the judgment.10
Conclusion
All competing versions must be investigated within the same case.
Sughran Bibi requires police to test competing versions, justify arrest on material and base their final report on the facts actually discovered.