2001 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.156‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Transfer of investigation‑‑‑High Court was not supposed to supervise or control the investigation of the case and to interfere in the matter where the highest police functionaries in the area had already applied their conscious minds to the matters involved‑‑‑Superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector‑General of Police were not legally bound to necessarily transfer investigation of the case upon the request of the complainant‑‑ Prayer of the complainant for transfer of investigation being misconceived, Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine. Riaz Hussain and others v. The State 1986 SCMR 1934; Muhammad Arif v. Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 3 others 2000 YLR 1960; Emperor v. Khawaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 18; Shahnaz Begum v. The Honourable Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan and another PLD 1971 SC 677 and Malik Shaukat Ali Dogar and 12 others v. Ghulam Qasim Khan Khakwani and others PLD 1994 SC 281 ref. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Writ of mandamus, issuance of‑‑ Requirement‑‑‑Writ of mandamus can be issued by High Court when a public functionary legally bound to act in a particular manner is shown to its satisfaction not to be performing the said legal duty. Ch. Muhammad Jamil for Petitioner The, petitioner is the complainant of case F.I.R. No.361 of 2000 registered at Police Station Sarai Sadhu, District Khanewal and through the present petition he has sought transfer of investigation of the said criminal case.

2. The contents of this writ petition show that three investigations have already been held in this case and in the last such investigation conducted by respondent No.2 the accused persons were found to be innocent and the case set up by the petitioner in the F.I.R. was opined to be false. It is also mentioned in the memorandum of the present writ petition that the present petitioner had approached the Superintendent of Police, Khanewal and the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan for transfer of investigation of the said criminal case but they had refused to transfer investigation of the case.

3. This Court is generally ‑slow in interfering with investigation of a criminal case which function lies exclusively within the domain of the police. Holding of multiple and repeated investigations of a criminal case has been deprecated by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and by this Court in the cases of Riaz Hussain and others v. The State 1986 SCMR 1934 and Muhammad Arif v. Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 3 others 2000 YLR 1960. The Superintendent of Police, Khanewal and the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan have already attended to the grievances of the petitioner and they have decided not to transfer investigation of this case. This Court is not to supervise or control investigation of a criminal case and to interfere in the matter where the B highest functionaries of the police in the area have already applied their conscious minds to the matters involved. A reference in this regard may be made to the cases of Emperor v. Khawaja Nazir Ahmad AIR (32) 1945 PC 18, Shahnaz Begum v. The Honourable Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan and another PLD 1971 SC 677 and Malik Shaukat Ali Dogar and 12 others v. Ghulam Qasim Khan Khakwani and others PLD 1994 SC

281. A writ of mandamus can be issued by this Court when there is a legal duty cast upon a public functionary to act in a particular manner and it is shown to the satisfaction of this Court that such a public functionary is not performing the said legal duty. For the purposes of the present petition its may be observed that there was no legal duty cast upon the Superintendent of Police, Khanewal and the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan. Range, Multan to necessarily transfer investigation of the above mentioned criminal case upon a request made by the petitioner in that regard. In these circumstances the prayer regarding issuance of a writ of mandamus against them in this respect is clearly misconceived. For all these reasons this petition is hereby dismissed in limine.

4. The office is directed to send a copy of this order to respondent No.2 for his information. N.H.Q./A‑163/L Petition dismissed.