In The Lahore High Court, Lahore.

W.P. No:___________/2009

*******

Sarfraz Rana
……. Petitioner
VERSUS
Inspector General of Police, Punjab etc.
…….Respondents

*******

FIR No: 503/09

Dated: 12-12-09

Offence u/s: 302/34 PPC

Police Station: Bata Pur, Lahore.

*******

INDEX

Sr Page
Particulars Annex Dated
No No

Main Petition For

1 1-7
Restoration of FIR

2 Affidavit of Petitioner 8-13

Copy of Post Mortem

3 Report & Chemical A 14-18
Examiner Report
 2

Copy of Educational
4 B 19-20
Record of the Deceased

Copy of FIR No: 503/09

5 u/s 302/34 PPC in Police C 12-12-09 21
Station Bata Pur, Lahore

Copies of Various
Applications by the
6 D 22-29
Petitioner before Police
Officials

Copies of Print Media

7 E 20-33
Reports

Copies of Police Record

8 F 34-59
Quashing the FIR

Petition for Dispensing

With Requirement of
9 60-61
Appending Attested
Copies

10 Affidavit of Petitioner 62-63

11 Power of Attorney 64

PETITIONER

Through

Ch. Mohammad Zaffar Ullah Sraw Mian Faizul Hassan

Advocate High Court Advocate High Court

C. C. No: PLH-39415 C.C. No: PLH-26167

67-Hajvery Complex 67-Hajvery Complex

2-Mozang Road 2-Mozang Road

Lahore Lahore
 3

In The Lahore High Court, Lahore.

W.P. No:___________/2009

*******

Sarfraz Rana s/o Muhammad Tufail Rana r/o House No 5, Street

No 1, Near Wapda Colony, Sultan Mehmood Road, Shalimar Town,
Post Office Bhagwanpura, Lahore.
……. Petitioner
VERSUS

1. Inspector General of Police, Punjab.

2. Deputy Inspector General (Investigation) of Police, Lahore.
3. Senior Superintendent (Investigation) of Police, Lahore.
4. Superintendent (Investigation) of Police Cantt., Lahore.
5. Mian Muhammad Riaz SDPO, Manawan, Lahore.
6. Muhammad Javaid, SHO (Operations) Bata Pur, Bata Pur
Police Station, Lahore.
7. Muhammad Abbas, SHO (Investigation), Bata Pur, Bata Pur
Police Station, Lahore.
8. Muhammad Ijaz Ali Sub-Inspector (Investigation) (Inquiry
Officer), Bata Pur Police Station, Lahore.
9. Muhammad Ahmed Bokhari s/o Muhammad Ijaz Bokhari r/o
House No 5, Street no 5/B, Shah Kamal Road, Mughalpura,
Lahore.
10. Shakeel Zahid, s/o Zahid Iqbal, Caste Arain, R/o House No 56,
Main Fateh Garh, Mughalpura, Lahore.
……. Respondents
 4

*******

FIR No: 503/09

Dated: 12-12-09

Offence u/s: 302/34 PPC

Police Station: Bata Pur, Lahore.

*******

Petition Under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan

1973 and All Other Enabling Provisions for Restoration of FIR
Quashed by Delinquent Police Officials & for Conduct of Fair &
Impartial Investigation.

Respectfully Sheweth:

1. That the Petitioner resides at the above mentioned address.

The facts leading to the instant petition are that on Saturday
28-11-09 at about 02:00pm respondent no 9 came to his
house and took away his son namely Rana Muhammad Irfan
(age 21 years), with him.

2. That on the same day at 04:00 pm someone rang up his

landline number that his son Irfan has drowned in BRB
canal. The petitioner and his brother in law Muhammad Arif
Alvi reached the canal where Respondent no 9 & 10 were
also present amongst other people.

3. The petitioner was told that his son Muhammad Irfan had
drowned and that the respondent no 9 & 10 could not save
him

4. That the respondent no 10’s apparel had no drop of water

on it. The respondent no 9 & 10 on inquiry by the Petitioner
kept on changing statements. It gave birth to doubt in
Petitioner’s mind like
 5

i) What were they doing on such secluded place, which

remains deserted even in ordinary day time and
especially on the Eid day?

ii) The respondent No 10 was stated to have jumped in

the canal to save his son but his clothes were not wet.

iii) Why they came to canal side on such a cold day when
swim was out of question and even otherwise the
deceased did not know how to swim?

iv) And if they had taken off boots and socks and were
sitting by the canal dipping their feet in the water,
then where did the boots and socks of the deceased
go? As they were not available there neither were they
found on the dead body (vide post mortem report
ANNEXURE A). Etc. etc.

But the respondents failed to give any plausible answer

rather they kept on contradicting each other.

5. That the respondent no 9, who took away the deceased from

home, was not known to the Petitioner or any of his family
as friend of the deceased. He had never come to the house
prior to this incident. Petitioner’s son Rana Muhammad
Irfan was studying in BSc Computer Sciences in Rachna
College of Engineering and Technology Gujranwala and he
resided there (vide educational record of deceased
ANNEXURE B). Whereas, the respondent no 9 & 10 reside at
Lahore.

6. That the deceased’s dead body was not found on the spot.
According to ocular version of the respondent no 9 & 10 it
went with the water current. However, later on it was
recovered by the police on 07-12-09 at Bhoja Bridge on
canal near Bhoja Village district Kasur. There were no socks
or boots on the feet of the dead body. The Petitioner
 6

apprehended that the respondent no 9 & 10 had killed his

son by throwing him in the canal as he did not know how to
swim.

7. That on a call, the respondent No 6 (SHO Operations PS Bata

Pur) reached the spot and took along the petitioner and the
respondent No 9 & 10 to police station. After some
preliminary investigation, the respondent No 6 took the
accused Respondent No 9 & 10 to the other side of the room
and after having a conversation with someone on cell phone
the respondent No 6 changed his attitude and all of a
sudden, started scolding the petitioner as if he was the
accused for the reasons best known to him.

8. That no FIR was registered at that time and the respondent

no 6 directed the petitioner and respondent no 9 & 10 to
settle the matter mutually without realizing its improbality
qua the murder of a young son of the petitioner.

9. That the dead body was recovered on 07-12-09 and

subsequently the police had to register an FIR No: 503/09
dated: 12-12-09 u/s 302/34 PPC in Police Station Bata Pur,
Lahore (vide copy of FIR ANNEXURE C).

10. The case was then transferred to investigation branch of

police. Unfortunately, the Respondent no 7 also turned out
to be a replica of respondent no 6 in moral, ethical and
human sense. He again kept on forcing the petitioner to give
a statement that it was merely an accident and that his son
was not murdered. The arrested accused respondent no 9 &
10 were given VVIP protocol at the police station by
respondent no 7 & 8. Further the respondent no 7 & 8
intimidated the eye witness in order not to give correct
testimony. In fact, the petitioner was told by one of the men
present at the crime scene that he had seen respondent no 9
 7

& 10 pushing the deceased into the canal. But his version
was never given any credence.

11. That the petitioner moved numerous applications before

Respondent no 1, 2, 3 & 4 but with no positive result coming
there from. (vide copies of applications ANNEXURE D)

12. The matter being heinous and horrible in nature was also
given wide coverage even in print media (vide copies of
media reports ANNEXURE E).

13. Be that as it may, at last that happened which the petitioner

had feared from the beginning during whole of
investigation, the police failed to to record his statement but
also failed to get him joint in any stage of the investigation.
On the other hand, the police with a mala fide motive
cancelled the FIR (vide copy of police record ANNEXURE F)
declared the incident to be an accident without having any
regard to the points raised by the petitioner in paragraph 4
of this petition, and which he has been raising in all his
applications since the inception of the case. They further
intimidated the eye witness, who saw respondent no 9 & 10
shove the deceased into the canal, not to give testimony.

14. That the petitioner had been pursuing his case vigorously
before various police officials till has completely failed to
seek redress of his grievances.

15. That the petitioner has been subjected to worst kind of

treatment, which the father of a murdered son can receive.
The petitioner’s son was hope of the family for a better
future. He was studying computer engineering and the
family hoped that happier days will come when he qualifies.
The accused have taken that hope from the family.

16. That the petitioner has no other speedy and efficacious

remedy available to him other than to file this petition.
 8

PRAYER:
It is, therefore, humbly prayed:
I. That the FIR No: 503/09 dated: 12-12-09 u/s 302/34
PPC in Police Station Bata Pur, Lahore, may kindly be
restored. And
II. That the respondents no 1 & 2 may graciously be
ordered to appoint some independent police officer to
carry out investigation in a fair and impartial way. And
III. That the respondents no 6, 7 & 8 be brought to book
for the above mentioned crimes. And
IV. That any other relief which this honourable court
deems fit and appropriate may kindly be awarded.

PETITIONER
Through

Ch. Mohammad Zaffar Ullah Sraw Mian Faizul Hassan

Advocate High Court Advocate High Court

C. C. No: PLH-39415 C.C. No: PLH-26167

67-Hajvery Complex 67-Hajvery Complex

2-Mozang Road 2-Mozang Road

Lahore Lahore

NOTE: First Petition on the Subject by the Petitioner.

ADVOCATE
 9

In The Lahore High Court, Lahore.

W.P. No:___________/2009

*******

Sarfraz Rana
……. Petitioner
VERSUS
Inspector General of Police, Punjab etc.
…….Respondents

*******

AFFIDAVIT OF: Sarfraz Rana s/o Muhammad Tufail Rana r/o

House No 5, Street No 1, Near Wapda Colony, Sultan Mehmood
Road, Shalimar Town, Post Office Bhagwanpura, Lahore.

**********

Respectfully Sheweth:

I, the above named Deponent, do hereby, solemnly affirm and

declare as under:

1. That the Petitioner resides at the above mentioned address.

On Saturday 28-11-09 at about 02:00pm respondent no 1
came to my house and took away my son namely Rana
Muhammad Irfan (approximately 21 years of age), with him.

2. That approximately at 04:00 pm someone unknown rang up

my residence landline number that my son Irfan has
 10

drowned in BRB canal. When I and my brother in law Mr.

Muhammad Arif Alvi reached the canal many people were
present there. Respondent no 9 & 10 were also in
attendance among these people.

3. That my son was not there. On asking the respondent no 9 &

10 and other people narrated that my son Muhammad Irfan
had drowned and that the respondents could not save him
despite the fact that respondent no 10 dived in the canal for
his rescue.

4. That the respondent no 10’s apparel had no drop of water on

it. The respondent no 9 & 10 on inquiry by the Petitioner
kept on changing statements. That gave birth to doubt in
Petitioner’s mind and he raised many questions like

i) What were they doing on such secluded place, which

remains deserted in even day time on Eid day?

ii) Why respondent no 10’s clothes were not wet if he

jumped in the canal to save his son?

iii) Why they came to canal side on such a cold day as

swim was out of question on such day and even
otherwise the deceased did not know how to swim?

iv) According to them they had taken off boots and

socks and were sitting by the canal dipping their feet
in the water, if so where did the boots and socks of
the deceased go? As they were not available there
neither were they found on the dead body
(ANNEXURE A). Etc. etc.

But the respondents failed to give any plausible answer

rather they kept on contradicting each other.

5. That the respondent no 9, who took away the deceased from

home, was not known to the Petitioner or any of his family
 11

as friend of the deceased. He had never come to the house

prior to this incident. Petitioner’s son Rana Muhammad Irfan
was studying in BSc Computer Sciences in Rachna College of
Engineering and Technology Gujranwala and he resided
there (ANNEXURE B). Whereas, the respondents reside at
Lahore.

6. That the deceased’s dead body was not found on the spot.
According to ocular version of the respondents it went with
the water current. However, later on it was recovered by the
police on 07-12-09 at Bhoja Bridge on canal near Bhoja
Village district Kasur. There were no socks or boots on the
feet of the dead body. The Petitioner apprehended that the
respondents have killed his son by throwing him in the
canal as he did not know how to swim.

7. That the Petitioner sent someone to call the police and the
respondent no 6 along with his policemen arrived at the
spot. He took the Petitioner and the respondents and their
relations with him to the police station and started
interrogating the accused. Meanwhile, the petitioner felt
need for urinating and went to the wash room. When
petitioner came out of it the respondent no 6 along with the
accused was standing near wash room’s door and all of a
sudden started scolding the petitioner without rhyme or
reason and asked him to sign a statement that the said
incident was not a murder but was an accident. On this fast
change of events the petitioner started weeping but to no
avail. Petitioner’s brother in law who was sitting outside
with some media friends of his came in after hearing
petitioner’s wails. The media personnel intervened on
behalf of the petitioner and kept the respondent no 6 at bay
and made him realise that he had to act in accordance with
law. The petitioner is sure that a bribe was offered to the
respondent no 6 in his absence. There can be no other
 12

reason why a police official would all of a sudden behave in

this course manner to a man who has just lost a grown up
son.

8. That however no FIR was registered at that time and the

respondent no 6 told them to go away to a dera of an
influential person of the vicinity and get their matter
resolved instead of coming to police and wait for the dead
body to be recovered. The petitioner did not go to the dera
of that person as he knew the repute of the said person and
also knew that he was a poor man in comparison with the
influence and financial position of the accused and that he
would not be listened to.

9. That the dead body was recovered on 07-12-09 and

subsequently the police had to register an FIR No: 503/09
dated: 12-12-09 u/s 302/34 PPC in Police Station Bata Pur,
Lahore (ANNEXURE C).

10. The case was then transferred to investigation branch of

police and the petitioner thought that now perhaps he will
be in safer hands but that thought now seems as if the
petitioner was living in fools’ paradise. Respondent no 7
turned out to be a replica of respondent no 6 in moral,
ethical and human sense. He again kept on forcing the
petitioner to give a statement that it was merely an accident
and that his son was not murdered. The arrested accused
respondent no 9 & 10 were given VVIP protocol in the police
station by respondent no 7 & 8. The petitioner came to
know of it when one night the petitioner could not sleep and
was extremely disturbed, he went to police station and saw
for himself that the accused were putting up for night in in-
charge investigation’s (respondent no 7’s) room in the
police station, which again is not possible if there is no
corruption or wielding of influence on the police. Further
 13

the respondent no 7 & 8 intimidated the eye witness into

changing his testimony. The petitioner was told by one of
the men present at the crime scene when he first reached
there that he had seen respondent no 9 & 10 push the
deceased into the canal. The petitioner reported the matter
to the respondent no 7 when the case was transferred to
him but he along with respondent no 8 went to the man’s
house threatened him with dire consequences and the
respondent no 9 & 10 paid him some amount not to give
testimony.

11. That the petitioner moved numerous applications before

Respondent no 1, 2, 3 & 4 but with no result in the state of
affairs. (ANNEXURE D)

12. That in desperation the petitioner tried to seek media

support in his favour. He got his case reported in numerous
newspapers (ANNEXURE E) but that too had no effect on the
police.

13. That at last that happened which the petitioner had feared
from the beginning. The police with mala-fide intentions
decided the investigation against the petitioner without
calling him in any of the investigations. They not only failed
to record his statement or to join him in any of the
investigations, but also illegally quashed the FIR
(ANNEXURE F) and declared the incident to be an accident
without having any regard to the points raised by the
petitioner in paragraph 4 of this petition, and which he has
been raising in all his applications since the inception of the
case. They further intimidated the eye witness, who saw
respondent no 9 & 10 shove the deceased into the canal, not
to give testimony.

14. That the petitioner had been pursuing his case vigorously
before various police officials till last week when the
 14

respondent no 5 told him to go away and do what ever he

can do.

15. That the petitioner has been subjected to worst kind of

treatment, which the father of a murdered son can receive.
The petitioner’s son was hope of the family for a better
future. He was studying computer engineering and the
family hoped that happier days will come when he qualifies.
The accused have taken that hope from the family.

16. That the petitioner has no other speedy and efficacious

remedy available to him other than to file this petition.

That the above-mentioned contents are true and correct to the

best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed
therein.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified on Oath at Lahore on ___________ that the contents of the

above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, belief and information and nothing has been
concealed therein.

DEPONENT
 15

In The Lahore High Court, Lahore

CM No: _________/2009

IN

W.P. No:___________/2009

*******

Sarfraz Rana VERSUS IG Punjab, etc

*******

Petition for Dispensing with the requirement of producing

certified copies of documents under all enabling
Provisions

Respectfully Sheweth:

1. That the petitioner has filed the accompanying main

petition.

2. That the certified copies of the documents concerned are not

available readily so the petitioner is filing this application
with non-certified copies.

3. That the petitioner would append the certified copies later

on or whenever ordered by the court.

4. That it is, therefore, humbly prayed:

 16

PRAYER:

That the requirement of certified copies may kindly be

dispensed with.

PETITIONER

Through

Ch. Mohammad Zaffar Ullah Sraw Mian Faizul Hassan

Advocate High Court Advocate High Court

C. C. No: PLH-39415 C.C. No: PLH-26167

67-Hajvery Complex 67-Hajvery Complex

2-Mozang Road 2-Mozang Road

Lahore Lahore
 17

In The Lahore High Court, Lahore

CM No: _________/2009

IN

W.P. No:___________/2009

Sarfraz Rana VERSUS IG, Punjab, etc

*******

AFFIDAVIT OF: Sarfraz Rana s/o Muhammad Tufail Rana r/o

House No 5, Street No 1, Near Wapda Colony, Sultan Mehmood
Road, Shalimar Town, Post Office Bhagwanpura, Lahore.

*******

I, the above named Deponent, do hereby, solemnly affirm and

declare as under:

1. That the petitioner has filed the accompanying main

petition.

2. That the certified copies of the documents concerned are not

available readily so the petitioner is filing this application
with non-certified copies.

3. That the petitioner would append the certified copies later

on or whenever ordered by the court.
 18

That the above-mentioned contents are true and correct to the

best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been
concealed therein.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified on Oath at Lahore on ___________ that the contents of the

above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, belief and information and nothing has been
concealed therein.

DEPONENT