2018 P Cr (PLP)

FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.

The petitioner through the instant petition has questioned the legality of the order passed by respondent No. 2 (DIG, Hyderabad), through which he has directed for re-investigation of FIR No. 16/2009, which was lodged at PS Thano Bola Khan.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the complainant of the aforesaid FIR, which was lodged in the year 2009 and since then the case is being proceeded with a very slow pace, at the same was being delayed by the nominated accused persons. According to him, the case is now at the verge of completion and at this stage an order for re-investigation is not proper. The petitioner apprehends that the order of re-investigation can be used to favor the influential persons and to damage the case of the petitioner, and to support the case of nominated accused by twisting the real facts.

3. We have heard the arguments advanced and have gone through the documents and records placed before us as well as case-laws relied upon from either side.

4. Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter 'the Code') empowers a superior officer of the police to direct the investigation officer to investigate the case further. Re-investigation is not contemplated under the Code. However, in compliance of a direction by the high-ups, the investigating officer, is competent, even subsequent to the filing of final report under subsection (2) of section 173, to investigate the case further.

5. The dictionary meaning of 'further' (when used as an adjective) is additional, more supplemental. Further investigation is sometime referred as 're-investigation' but it does not amount to a 'fresh investigation' to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation; and actually, it is the continuation of the earlier investigation. There will be no cavil that the investigation agency is empowered to multiple further investigations. In drawing this conclusion, we have also drawn inspiration from the fact that subsection (2) clearly envisages that on completion of further investigation the investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate a further or supplementary report and not fresh report or reports regarding the further evidence obtained during such investigation.

6. We are of the view that further investigation is a continuation of such investigation which culminates in a further police report under subsection (2) of section

173. If the Magistrate has already taken cognizance and trial initiated, then the trial Court may pass any appropriate order on such further or supplementary report. In this respect, we would like to take reliance from Raja Khurshid Ahmed v. Muhammad Bilal and others (2014 SCMR 474), wherein it is held as: "It would be seen that as per settled law, there is no bar to the reinvestigation of a criminal case and the police authorities are at liberty to file a supplementary challan even after submission of the final report under section 173, Cr.P.C." Similarly, in the case of Bahadur Khan v. Muhammad Azam and 2 others (2006 SCMR 373), it is held by the apex Court as under: "It is well settled proposition of the law as also held consistently in the important judgments of this Court and those cited by the learned Advocate on Record, in view of the provision of section 173, Cr.P.C. that no legal bar existed for reinvestigation of a criminal case even after submission of final report under section 173, Cr.P.C. and the police could carry out the fresh investigation and submit its report to the Court."

7. Though learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that re-investigation or further investigation conducted was not proper and the same could be used to damage the case of the prosecution, we cannot agree with the submission that on that allegation a further investigation is warranted. Whatever, the result of further investigation, the matter should be placed before the concerned Court and if, the petitioner feels himself aggrieved in any manner with the report submitted after such 're-investigation', he shall have a chance to agitate before the Court, where such report will be submitted. It is also well-settled that a Court of law is not bound by the Ipse Dixit of the police authorities and rather should formulate its own independent views irrespective of the investigation.

8. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no need of interference of the order of 'further investigation' passed by the DIG, Hyderabad as such practice is not strange and singular in nature, and the said police officer enjoys such power under the statutory provision pointed out above. Hence, the instant petition was dismissed by our short order dated 20th September, 2017 and these are the reasons for the same. MH/M-135/Sindh Petition dismissed.