Transfer of investigation

Transfer of investigation was not a mere temporary procedural formality but a definitive and permanent measure, undertaken to ensure the comprehensive conduct of the entire investigation.

Once a cancellation report is prepared and approved by the Magistrate, no further investigation shall be conducted by the investigating agency unless the Magistrate's order is set aside

As soon as the cancellation report prepared by the investigating agency is concurred with by the concerned Magistrate, this fact must be promptly entered into the relevant police register

Investigating officer should likewise record such development in the case file, duly noting it in the police diary

Before ordering the transfer of investigation, the relevant Board, as envisioned under Article 18-A of the Police Order, 2002, must meticulously examine the entire record to ascertain whether the criminal case remained legally in existence and had not been cancelled or quashed

When the investigation of a criminal case is transferred, it shall be conducted exclusively by the entrusted officer and shall not revert to the previous Investigating Officer under any circumstances

Magistrates handling remand or pretrial matters must exercise strict vigilance and closely examine the record, lest their orders inadvertently legitimize an illegality.

During pendency of trial of private complaint, police authorities transferred investigation for re-investigation of FIR registered against accused

Validity

There are three police hierarchies bestowed with power to transfer investigation i.e. the Head of District Police; the Regional Police Officer; and the Provincial Police Officer

Transfer of investigation is not a matter of routine or simple compliance of Art. 18-A of Police Order, 2002, instead it is ordered if some further material relevant to the case is required and to find out the truth for advancement of the cause of justice, and not to oblige one party to the detriment of the other for some ulterior motive

Before making such order, troubles of parties in producing their witnesses/evidence time and again should also be kept in mind

Such power is not unfettered rather qualified by certain contingencies and pre-requisites, inter-alia, discovery of some new event or evidence; previous investigation being unilateral, or based on mala fide, or excess of jurisdiction, or having serious flaw(s) or being unsatisfactory for some reasons etc.

High Court is also under legal obligation to see legality and validity of repeated transfers of investigation in the light of peculiar facts and circumstances of each case

High Court directed the authorities that re-investigation or further investigation within the contemplation of Art. 18-A of Police Order, 2002 could be conducted after conclusion of proceedings in private complaint depending upon fate of trial, pursuant to order in question

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Application filed by the respondent under S.22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C., was allowed with the direction to the SSP (Operation) to entrust investigation of the case FIR a named (specific) ASP/SDPO

Legality

Record reflected that FIR No.101 dated 12.02.2025 was registered on the complaint of complainant "MN" against accused/respondent

Respondent-accused, thereafter, moved an application before the SSP (Investigation), for transfer of investigation, followed by an application under Ss. 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C., before the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace

Said application was allowed, vide order dated 08.03.2025, with direction to entrust the investigation to "ARQ", ASP/SDPO

SSP (Investigation), due to the transfer of the said officer, assigned the case to another officer

However, on 21.05.2025, the Justice of Peace issued further directions for compliance of the earlier order dated, 08.03.2025, insisting on entrusting the matter to the said named officer and sought an explanation from the SSP (Investigation)

Directive of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace requiring the SSP (Operations) to entrust the investigation of FIR No.101/2025 specifically to ASP/SDPO "ARQ", did not fall within the lawful parameters of S.22-A(6),Cr.P.C.

Said provisions abundantly made it clear that while an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace might, in appropriate circumstances, issue directions for transfer of investigation from one officer to another, the statute did not authorize such authority to dictate the name of a particular officer to whom investigation must be entrusted

Legislative intent was to provide a supervisory check to ensure fair investigation, not to confer power of administrative control or appointment over the police force

Any interpretation otherwise would amount to enlarging the scope of S.22-A(6), Cr.P.C., beyond its express language and settled judicial precedents

Authority to assign or re-assign investigation to a particular officer vested exclusively in the competent police hierarchy and any insistence upon nomination of a named officer constituted an unwarranted intrusion into the executive domain

Reiteration of the earlier direction through the subsequent order dated 21.05.2025, despite the transfer of the said officer, further demonstrated a departure from the limits prescribed under S.22-A(6), Cr.P.C., and an overreach into matters squarely falling within the administrative discretion of the police authorities

Police, being an executive organ of the State, was mandated to conduct investigation independently and judicial interference in the operational aspect of Assigning Officers undermined that independence and carried the risk of eroding confidence in the impartiality of the investigative process

Petition was allowed, accordingly.

If after completion of investigation and sending challan report prepared under S. 173, Cr.P.C., it is felt or highlighted that during already conducted investigation, certain aspects regarding basic/constituting elements of the offence or version of the accused could not be investigated, new facts/better evidence or further information has become available which has direct/essential/vital nexus with alleged crime, proclaimed offender in the case has been arrested and important piece of evidence like recovery of weapon of offence is to be collected and other allied matters to be investigated, defects of vital nature in already conducted investigation has been marked/detected/pointed out, already conducted investigation remained unsatisfactory due to non-availability of required evidence or through induction of false evidence due to corrupt behavior of Investigating Officer (concerned), then, non-conducting of further or fresh/re-investigation would virtually amount to putting a seal on human error and with no opportunity to make amends although it be possible to do so

Police as State agency should be as much interested as any other agency concerned in the administration of justice, to find out the truth regarding crime and lay the whole facts before the Court

Statutory functions of police as investigating agency and Courts are complementary to each other without overlapping

Fact that previous investigation had yielded certain results does not act as a hurdle or a deterrent for the police in reaching the truth if additional facts/circumstances are brought to light help in its discovery

No embargo exists on the transfer of investigation from one police officer to the other and to carry out further or fresh/re-investigation of the case even after submission of challan in the Court.

Investigating Officer has to collect entire relevant facts of the occurrence irrespective of the fact that such facts favour prosecution or accused; he is under obligation to collect the evidence honestly, justly and fairly for bringing the truth on record not only to build up the case of complainant with evidence enabling the Court to record conviction but also for reaching to a just and fair decision

If investigation is not conducted on merits then ultimately it causes frightful harm to the concept of fair trial guaranteed by Art. 10-A of the Constitution

Criminal Procedure Code has no express provision for making order regarding change or re-investigation is available yet same subject has been dealt in the light of S. 551, Cr.P.C. and under administrative control of police hierarchy

However, in Police Order, 2002, such subject was expressly dealt by Art. 18 and not being dealt under Article 18-A introduced through the Punjab Police Order (Amendment) Act, 2013.

Perusal of Art. 18A(1) of Police Order, 2002, reveals that for dealing with application for change of investigation, two steps are necessary for District Police Officer i.e. (i) to get opinion from District Standing Board and (ii) after receipt of opinion from District Standing Board to give reasons in writing

Getting opinion from District Standing Board is inclusive and not conclusive

Opinion of District Standing Board cannot be made as a "sole" basis for change of investigation; District Police Officer is not bound to accept such opinion blindfoldly, rather after receipt of opinion, he has to examine entire facts and then while giving express/valid reasons in writing to pass order regarding change of investigation or otherwise, as the case may be.

If after submission of challan in the Court and forwarding police file with the same, further or fresh/re-investigation is going to be ordered and police file is required then providing proper written intimation in this regard to the Trial Court is very much necessary.

Perusal of the impugned order revealed that DIG Police (Investigation) after receipt of opinion of District Standing Board without mentioning the quality of already conducted investigation as well as conduct of first Investigating Officer and even without mentioning that which fact of the case had earlier not been seen/verified and now required verification, transferred investigation

Impugned order did not carry valid/express reasons in writing by DIG Police (Investigation), hence, same did not fulfill spirit of Art. 18-A of Police Order, 2002 as well as S. 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and thus not sustainable

Impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for decision afresh.

Order for transfer of investigation can also be passed if the previous investigations have been conducted unilaterally without associating the actual culprit involved and without trying to identify and ascertain the person responsible for committing the crime

Police does not have an unfettered power in this respect and re-investigation or further investigation may only be carried out if some further material relating to the case is required or if the previous investigation is mala fide or in excess of jurisdiction.

Where Review Board had recommended for transfer of investigation on the grounds that: (a) cogent reasons had been given by the applicant for change of investigation; (b) prima facie, previous investigations had been conducted unilaterally without ascertaining the facts and circumstances of the case; and (c) there was circumstantial and material evidence available on record which needed further probe to dig out the real facts, High Court observed that the Review Board's recommendations were vague and it had not made any effort to substantiate them

Inspector General of Police was obligated to examine the case himself when the Review Board's recommendations were placed before him but he had rubber-stamped them

Impugned order does not reflect any application of mind, as such, the same was set aside.

Article 18-A expressly requires the Heads of the District Police and the Regional Police Officers to record reasons when the recommendations of the DSB and the RSB, as the case may be, are placed before them

Said statutory duty would not be discharged by simply reproducing those recommendations

Order must demonstrate due application of mind by them otherwise it would be regarded arbitrary and struck down.

Reinvestigation cannot be undertaken to oblige a particular party or for some other ulterior motive.

Investigation cannot be transferred after the case has been decided by the Trial Court.

Even though re-investigation or further investigation is permissible, subject to Art. 18A of the Police Order, 2002, it does not mean that it can be ordered in routine.

Question as to whether investigation can be changed or, to put it in another way, whether a case can be re-investigated or further investigated after the submission of final report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. (and, more particularly after the accused is/are indicted) is quite contentious

Two seemingly irreconcilable streams of decisions on the point detailed.

Neither the Code of Criminal Procedure nor the Police Rules, 1934, provide any procedure for transfer of investigation of a criminal case from one police officer to the other.

Applicant claiming to be their relative, made an application under S. 22-A(6)(ii), Cr.P.C., for transfer of investigation

Application was dismissed

Validity

Applicant was not connected to the incident personally, he had sought for transfer of investigation of the case of accused under the pretext that he was his relative, which could hardly be made a reason for transfer of investigation of criminal case

Even otherwise, nothing was brought on record by the applicant, which could prove his relationship with the accused

Investigation of the case was over and its cognizance had already been taken by the Court having jurisdiction

Application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Scope.

Held; accused could apply for pre-trial or pending trial acquittal under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C., as such no further discussion was necessary for quashing of FIR

Accused had shown mistrust upon the enquiry being conducted by Circle Officer of Anti-Corruption Establishment and had presented a photograph of the Circle Officer wherein he was sitting before a notable politician in submissive style at his place

Photograph indicated that he was vulnerable to take pressure or he was eager to make someone's acquaintance beneficial for him

Although, distrust of accused upon Circle Officer was not unfounded but still the enquiry in a criminal case could not be discontinued as such it was not proper to quash any enquiry

Enquiry was transferred to another officer

Chairman Anti-Corruption Establishment was instructed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Circle Officer and it further ordered that no field posting would be offered to Circle Officer in future

Petition was disposed of accordingly.

Record of Standing Board as to transfer of investigation was requisitioned in order to know the reasons assigned by the Board for the transfer of investigation as required under Art.18(6) of the Police Order, 2002

Transfer order of investigation lacked reasons despite requirement under Art.18(6) of Police Order, 2002 to assign reasons for such transfer

Petition was accepted and transfer order being shorn of reasons was declared illegal and unlawful and same was set aside.

Provincial Ombudsman himself had not passed any order for transfer of investigation in the case, and he had only forwarded the grievance of the complainant to concerned police authorities regarding dishonest investigation

Board was constituted under Art.18(6) of the Police Order, 2002, which made recommendations for transfer of the case, and the same were approved by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Investigation)

Deliberations were to be made by the Board

Reinvestigation of a criminal case after submission of the final report under S.173, Cr.P.C. was not legally barred, if some new event or incident would appear warranting reinvestigation or further investigation

Conclusion of investigation of criminal case on "Nian" (Special Oath) was illegal and such ground alone was sufficient to pass an order for transfer of investigation for reinvestigation and further investigation, especially when the son of the complainant had yet not been recovered

Police Officers were under obligation to conduct and conclude investigation purely on merits and strictly in accordance with law

Slipshod manner to draw conclusions on "Nian" etc. was one of the glaring examples of maladministration

Investigating Officer was duty bound to unveil the truth and collect all relevant material/evidence in this regard

Impugned order of transfer of investigation was neither improper nor illegal, rather the same had been passed to achieve the above objects

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Complainant lodged F.I.R., but no investigation was carried out, and investigation was transferred to the Crime Branch Police and same was entrusted to Inspector, Crime Branch, with the directions to conclude investigation within seven days

Inspector Crime Branch, without inspection of the place of incident and recording of the statement of witnesses, within three days submitted report under "A" class before Magistrate, with the endorsement that witnesses being not available, due to lack of evidence summary under "A" class could be accepted which proved that Investigating Officer was unaware about the scope of "A" class, according to "Bombay Presidency Police Guide", which was being followed in Sindh, since the days Sindh was part of Bombay Presidency

Investigating Officer in the present case had submitted that witnesses being not available, summary was being submitted

Such conduct of authorities and Investigating Officer fell within the ambit of colourable exercise

No reasons were attributed to justify the transfer of investigation from ordinary Police to Special Police

Transfer orders by police authorities, having no legal sanctity in the eyes of law, same was declared as null and void.

Petitioner had assailed order by virtue of which, respondent, on the recommendation of the Board constituted under Art.18(6) of Police Order, 2002 had transferred the investigation of case registered with Police. Station in District `D' to range crime `F'

Contention of counsel for the petitioner was that under Art.18(6) of Police Order, 2002, first investigation had to be changed within the same range; whereas respondent had transferred the first investigation of the petitioner's case from one region to range crime which was in violation of the rules and regulations

Validity

Provision of Art.18(6) of Police Order, 2002 was not mandatory and did not require that the first investigation must in all circumstances be changed within the same range

Investigation in the case was transferred after due deliberation and recommendation by a Board headed by a senior officer who recorded reasons for change of the investigation

Required procedure had been followed and the transfer of investigation was not mala fide

Counsel for the petitioner had not been able to satisfy as to how the petitioner, who was accused of offence under Ss.302, 148 & 149, P.P.C., was aggrieved of the order for transfer of investigation

Constitutional petition was dismissed.