2010 PLP 3142 (YLR)

CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.--Petitioner Muhammad Hafeez by way of the instant writ petition has sought for direction to respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to change the investigation of case F.I.R. No. 9 of 2009 registered with Police Station Noor, District Narowal.

2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant petition are that complainant Muhammad Rasheed has got registered the above-mentioned case against the petitioner. The same presently is under investigation. The complainant moved for transfer of the investigation in the same and a Standing Board comprising of three Police Officers of Narowal District namely Tariq Rustam Chohan, D.P.O, Narowal (Chairman), Ali Javed Anwar Malik, S.P. (Investigation), Sialkot (Member) and Muhammad Javed Warraich, S.P. (Investigation), Narowal (Member), did not agree to his request to change the investigation. The same Board subsequently recommended to change the investigation.

3. The petitioner feeling himself dissatisfied with the same has come to this Court with the instant petition.

4. It has been argued on his behalf that the second recommendation of the Board to change the investigation amounts to a review of its earlier decision and the same is not permissible in law. In support of such submission, reliance has been placed upon the case of Javaid Iqbal v. Additional Inspector General of Police, Lahore and 4 others (PLD 2008 Lahore 488).

5. As against the same, the learned A.A.-G. and the S. P (Investigation), Narowal/respondent No. 2 have contended that the second recommendation of the Board was made on new application of the complainant for re-investigation and the same was permissible in law and they in support of the same have placed reliance upon the case of Din-Muhammad Shakir alias D.M. Shakir v. D.S.P. Ichhra, Lahore (PLD 1977 Lahore 180) and Bahadur Khan v. Muhammad Azam and 2 others (2006 SCMR 373).

6. The complainant has submitted that the petitioner has defrauded and looted many persons in similar way and he now avoids investigation, so, that his guilt may not come on surface.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and copies of the record available perused.

8. The stance of the petitioner's side is that the second recommendation of the Board to change the investigation amounts to review of its earlier recommendation not to change the investigation.

9. As against the same, the stance of the learned D.P.-G. and respondent No. 2 is that the complainant feeling himself dissatisfied with the state of the investigation has made new application to reinvestigate the case and the same is permissible in law and in support of the same they have placed reliance upon the case of Din Muhammad Shakir alias D.M. Shakir v. D.S.P. Ichhra, Lahore (PLD 1977 Lahore 180) and Bahadur Khan v. Muhammad Azam and 2 others (2006 SCMR 373).

10. In the case of Bahadur Khan v. Muhammad Azam and 2 others (2006 SCMR 373), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed that there exists no legal bar for reinvestigation of a criminal case, even after submissions of final report under section 173, Cr.P.C. and the police can carry out fresh investigation after submitting the report to the court, but this would not mean that in a case, in which earlier after completion of investigation challan was submitted for trial of an offence, on which the accused had been tried and the case was finally decided upto the level of High Court or the, Supreme Court, subsequent challan would be entertained, which is submitted as the result of reinvestigation or further investigation of the case by the police on the happening of a subsequent incident and that the Court would proceed with the trial in the case in normal course. It is not the position in the case of the parties as that the accused had earlier neither been tried and nor his case finally decided up to the level of Hon'ble Supreme Court. This esteemed authority is amply applicable to the situation herein and it can be said that there is nothing wrong with the re-investigation in such circumstances. In this regard reliance has also been placed upon the case of Din Muhammad Shakir alias D. M. Shakir v. D.S.P. Ichhra, Lahore (PLD 1977 Lahore 180). The same is also apt in the matter in the above situation. The authority relied upon by the side of the petitioner rather also in a way supports the view point of the respondents. Hence, the same is not fully applicable to the case of the petitioner.

11. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot get the benefit of the same. The petition, therefore, has no force and the same is dismissed as such. C.Ms. Nos.2 and 4 to 6 of 2010.

12. As the main petition has been dismissed by this Court today, therefore, these miscellaneous petitions have lost their relevance. Dismissed as having gone infructuous. H.B.T./M-306/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.