2000 PLP 225 (YLR)

Dispensation sought for is allowed. Disposed of.

2. The petitioner is the complainant of case F.I.R. No.661/99 registered at Police station Phool Nagar, District Kasur on 10‑12‑1999 for offence under sections 420/468/506, P.P.C. Through this writ petition the petitioner has sought declaration that the findings and conclusions of the investigation conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Sadar, Lahore, respondent No.4 herein, are against the facts and illegal and a direction is sought to be issued to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to get a fair and impartial investigation of the case conducted through an independent and honest police officer out of the Lahore Range. It has also been prayed that respondent No.9, who is stated to be seized of the request by the police to cancel the abovementioned F.I.R., may be ordered not to announce the final order on the report seeking cancellation of the above‑mentioned criminal case.

3. I cannot help observing that this petition is diabolically misconceived. It is not the function of this Court to sit in judgment over the findings or conclusions of the Investigating Officers of criminal cases. It had been settled over half a century ago that while investigating a crime reported to it the police performs a statutory duty and its operational and investigational independence in that respect is worthy of as much sanctity and respect as the independence of the judiciary in its ad judicatory domain. A reference in this respect may be made to the case of Emperor v. Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (AIR (32) 1945 Privy Council 18). In pursuance of that principle this Court is generally slow in interfering with the police investigation. No exceptional circumstance has been pointed out in this case so as to warrant a departure from the said beaten track. If the petitioner feels dissatisfied with the investigation conducted by respondent No.4 in this case he should approach the higher police authorities in that respect who are competent to transfer the investigation or to order holding of a fresh investigation into the matter. This petition does not show that any such move has been made by the petitioner before the higher police authorities in this respect as no copy of any such application has been appended with this petition.

4. The matter of cancellation or otherwise of the case in question is still pending before respondent No.9. This Court would not like to pre‑empt his jurisdiction in the matter at such a stage. The petitioner may appear before respondent No.9 and try to convince him against cancellation of this case in the first instance, if so advised. Having failed to find any merit in this petition I am constrained to dismiss the same in limine. C.M. No. 1 of 2000

5. As the main writ petition has been dismissed by this Court today, therefore, the present application seeking interim relief has lost its relevance. Dismissed. N.H.Q./N‑10/L Petition dismissed.