2002 P Cr (PLP)

The matter pertains to case F.I.R. No.199 of 2001 under the offences 337, 342 ‑and 354, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Nawan Kot. The challan in this case, it is said, has been submitted before the Ilaqa Magistrate where it is pending since about 2 years.

2. Initially, the private respondents before this Court had lodged a complaint under the offences 365‑A, 392, 342, 354 and 337‑L(ii), P.P.C. But in view of the changes which were made at the time of submission of the challan in the offences itself, they felt aggrieved and brought the matter before this Court through a Writ Petition. No.3732 of 2002 and obtained directions for redressal of their grievance at the end of the S.S.P. (investigating Cell).

3. Through this writ petition, it was alleged that obtaining orders from this Court in Writ Petition No.3732 of 2002, was through suppression of true facts while not making the present petitioner a party to the case and without informing the Court that the offences which were not included in the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. had been deleted after a proper investigation:

4. It is further stated that the parties had at one stage entered into a compromise as well. That the purpose of obtaining such orders, was to prolong the agony of the petitioner through re‑investigation after the submission of the challan.

5. The petitioner has, therefore, come up through this writ petition asking for stoppage of further investigation.

6. Both the parties of the F.I.R., present before this Court, have now been heard. Comments were also called from the S.S.P. (Investigation), Lahore, which were produced have been seen.

7. The orders which have been obtained in Writ Petition No.3732 of 2002 from another learned Division Bench of this Court on 13‑3‑2002, have been reproduced in parawise comments and which are also reproduced below:‑‑ "The grievances of the petitioner are that petitioner No.1 got a criminal case registered vide F.I.R. No.199 of 2000, dated 15‑5‑2000 under sections 302/392/365‑A, P.P.C. and from the evidence collected during the investigation and statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. of the P.Ws. provisions of section 365‑A, P.P.C. are attached. The challan has also been summoned by the Special Judge, A.T.C. but has not been submitted and section 365‑A, P.P.C. has been deleted without any legal justification. Send copy of this petition to respondent No. 1 who will attend to the grievance of the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law. Learned Law Officer present on Court's call ensures compliance Disposed of." It is admitted that as per the policy set by the Home Department and the I.‑G. Police, Punjab. Lahore, if a challan is submitted, a re investigation is not done except on the orders of the Court.

9. In fact the present respondent had two options, firstly in filing a private complaint covering their entire grievance in case the police was not proceeding to take cognizance against the deleted offences or in the alternate ought to have moved the trial Court pointing out the evidence collected and appended with the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. while praying for framing of a charge according to the offences floating on the surface and the trial Court was fully competent in proceeding in accordance with law and accordingly if the case of the complainant side was made out even, with respect to the deleted offences.

10. Suppression of facts about the challan having been already submitted and respondent having obtained the aforementioned orders from this Court, had only complicated matters.

11. Anyway, as the matter had been referred to the S.S.P. (Investigating Cell), everything had to open up there including the fact whether a case was made out under the deleted offences and whether the police could take further action, in the matter after, submission of the challan.

12. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after a challan is submitted the case cannot be re‑investigated, is not based on any sound reasoning. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of Aftab Ahmad v. Hussain and others PLD 1987 SC 13, Muhammad Yousaf v. The State 2000 SCMR 453, State v. Bashir PLD 1997 SC 408, Ata Ullah v. Mumtaz Kahlon 1973 PCr.LJ 69 and more other cases on the point.

13. The only thing; therefore, to be seen is whether in this case there was a need for re‑investigation? The answer will be in the negative in view of the challan having been submitted a long time back and the evidence collected being already appended with the challan and the two opportunities aforementioned being available to the complainant.

14. A report under section 173, Cr.P.C. even if filed earlier, can be filed again on discovery of new facts and collection of further evidence. The only thing to be seen is whether what is to be appended as an additional material, has nexus with what has been previously deposited in the Court. The Court has then to take cognizance which means that it has to apply its mind with respect to new facts unfolded before it while connecting the present with the past and while appreciating whether what has been newly submitted, was necessary for the ends of justice and was not based on mala fides.

15. If through the fresh investigation further incriminating material has been collected which hitherto was not obtained and, therefore, not placed with the already submitted report, it may be placed before the trial Court for consideration. Otherwise, if the re‑investigation has only ended with the formulation of a second opinion of a Police Officer based on the already collected material forming part of the report under section 173, Cr.P.C., this should have no value and should remain with the said Police Officer.

16. Under the circumstances, the interest of justice shall be best met if the trial Court hears both sides on the question of addition of offences which were deleted previously. Disposed of. N.H.Q./M‑1398/L Order accordingly.