2011 P Cr (PLP)

SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J.

Through the instant petition, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has prayed for passing a direction to respondent No.1/Additional Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore to change investigation of the case arising out of F.I.R. No.580 of 2010, dated 2-6-2010, registered in Police Station Baghbanpura, Lahore, under section 39-A Electricity Act, on the ground that the respondents Nos.4 and 5/SHO and Incharge Investigation, Police Station Mughalpura, Lahore are not recording his version as well as the statements of his witnesses in connivance with the complainant/respondent No.6. The petitioner contended that he moved an application to respondent No.3/Capital City Police Officer, Lahore for change of investigation, on 24-6-2010, but his grievance has not been redressed. Thereafter, the petitioner moved another application to respondent No. 2/Deputy Inspector General of Police (Investigation), Punjab, Lahore for similar relief, but the same also did not succeed. The petitioner further contended that he filed an application, under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C, whereupon, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, vide order dated 12-8-2010, directed Deputy Inspector General of Police (Investigation), Punjab, Lahore to decide his application, under Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002, but no action has been taken so far. Finally, the petitioner moved third application to respondent No.1/ Additional Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, but in vain. However, the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction, wherein, an injunctive order was passed on 23.6-2010 by the learned Civil Judge, Ist Class, Lahore.

2. The respondent No.2/Deputy Inspector-General of Police (Investigation), Punjab, Lahore submitted his report and parawise comments, wherein, it is submitted that the F.I.R. in question was registered against the petitioner for committing theft of electricity and during investigation, 15 meters of electric cable, used during the theft, was recovered from him. He further submitted that pursuant to the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, dated 12-8-2010, a Board considered the application of the present petitioner for reinvestigation, but the same was unanimously, declined by the members of the Board in the meeting, held on 31-8-2010. He further submitted that the challan of the accused has already been sent to the Court of competent jurisdiction, where trial is in progress.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the submission of challan is not a legal bar for ordering reinvestigation of a criminal case. He argued that the investigations, earlier conducted, were not fair and the petitioner as well as his witnesses were not granted an opportunity to get their version recorded.

4. Conversely, learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab vehemently opposed the instant petition on the plea that there is a proper procedure, prescribed in Police Order, 2002, for change of investigation and the same has already been done. He further submitted that the Board, constituted under Article 18(6) of Police Order, 2002, considered the request of the present petitioner for change of the investigation but the same was unanimously declined by all the members of the Board in its meeting, held on 31-8-2010. He further submitted that only fresh material could justify the reinvestigation of a case after the submission of a challan, which is lacking in this case.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. From the report of respondent No.2/Deputy Inspector-General of Police (Investigation). Punjab, Lahore it is clear that the request of the present petitioner for change of investigation, as ordered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore on 12-8-2010, has been considered in accordance with Article 18(6) of Police Order, 2002. The F members of the concerned Board unanimously came to the conclusion that there was no need for change of the investigation. Hence, the petitioner has availed an alternative efficacious remedy. Furthermore, there is no fresh ground or material, which could justify reinvestigation of the instant case. The challan against the petitioner has been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction. The petitioner has also filed a civil suit for declaration and mandatory injunction, which is pending adjudication.

7. In view of above, the instant petition is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./J-26/L Petition dismissed.