1. ' Through the instant I.C.A. Order, dated 18-3-2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No,221 of 2004 has been assailed whereby on the assurance of learned Advocate-General and Yousaf Ali, S.P. That all the legal provisions would be added in the criminal matter and all the accused nominated in the F.I.R. Will be arrested, the writ petition was disposed of.
2. ' Learned counsel for the appellant has given background of the case by submitting that F.I.R. No, 865 of 2002, dated 6-11-2002, was registered under section 364, P.P.C. At P.S. Jaranwala at the statement of Shahid Javed for abduction of Zeeshan Shahid aged 8/9 years. Qamar Abbas, Shahzad and Haider Ali were nominated accused at the abetment of the appellant and one Suleman. The investigation of the case was firstly conducted by Wasim Faraz, S.-I. Who had not given any final finding on which, the investigation of the case was entrusted to Muhammad Iqbal, 5.-I. Who found all the accused innocent and he came to the conclusion that one Sabir Chirya is involved for abetment of son of the complainant. Sabran Bibi, real sister of Sabir Chirya filed a habeas petition before this Court for recovery of Sabir Chirya with the allegation that he has been arrested for the last three months and 25 days, on which, Bailiff conducted the raid and found Sabir Chirya standing near the latrine of Police Post on 17-2-2003. He was not arrested and was set at liberty. On 6-3-2003 S.P. (Investigation), Faisalabad further transferred the investigation and it was entrusted to Mushtaq Ahmad, S.P. (Investigating Circle), Faisalabad who also declared the accused named in the F.I.R. Innocent vide his report, dated 18-3-2003. The complainant being not satisfied with the investigation filed Writ Petition No,453 of 2003 which came-up for hearing on 17-4-2003 and S.S.P., Faisalabad was directed to depute some independent police official for further investigation of the case, and the investigation was entrusted to Yousaf Ali Harzi, S.P. Range Crimes, Faisalabad on 17-4-2003. He also investigated the case and vide his report, dated 4-9-2003 he came to the conclusion that the accused named in the F.I.R. Were innocent and son of the complainant has been concealed by Sabir Chirya and his two brothers Asghar and Jaffar Hussain alias Bagha. The complainant again filed Writ Petition No, 13748 of 2003 on 2-10-2003 with the prayer that D.I.-G. And S.P. (Range Crime) be directed to arrest the accused party for effecting the recovery of his child with further prayer that Wasim Faraz. S.-I. Be directed for adding section 201, P.P.C. In the F.I.R.
3. ' On 15-11-2003, Sabir Chirya, Asghar and Jaffar Hussain alias Bagha were arrested and report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was prepared on 16-12-2003 and the writ petition was disposed of on 16- 12-2003 with the observation that as per report the accused involved in the case have been arrested and those who have been found innocent are placed in Column-II of Report under section 173, Cr.P.C. And the writ petition was disposed of as having borne fruit. On 7-1-2004 respondent No,1 again filed Writ Petition No, 221 of 2004 almost with the same prayer which was decided on 16-3- 2004. The petition was disposed of vide the impugned order, dated 18-3-2004 wherein the learned Law Officer and Yousaf Ali, S.P. Range Crime had ensured that the accused named in the F.I.R. Will be arrested.
4. ' Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there is no evidence on record against the appellant and he has been declared innocent in successive investigations and placed in Column-II of report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Therefore, there was no legal justification to give assurance by the learned Law Officer or by the S.P. Range Crime to arrest the petitioner/appellant. He further adds that challan of the case has already been submitted with the Legal Branch and without fresh material reinvestigation of the case is ,uncalled for and is violative of section 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002, therefore, the impugned order is illegal.
5. ' The appeal has been opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant.
6. ' However, learned Law Officer has supported the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant.
7. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.
8. ' Admittedly, challan of the case has been submitted in the trial Court on 7-4-2003 i.e, yesterday.
9. Now it is for the trial Court to proceed with the case in accordance with law. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge even on the assurance given by the learned Law Officer or S.P. Range Crime amounts to interfere in the investigation. The appellant and the accused placed in Column- II can be summoned by the trial Court to face the trial in accordance with law, therefore, for the time being there is no need for further investigation and same is not admittedly pending at any stage, therefore, there is also no need to arrest the accused who are not required to be arrested as per Yousaf Ali, S.P. Range Crime who stated that their houses are being raided under the orders of learned Single Judge and his co-accused who according to the investigation are innocent. We have also noticed that the earlier Writ Petition No, 13748 of 2003 was with the same prayer and was disposed of on 16-12-2003 and that order has attained the finality as has not been further challenged, therefore, instant writ petition under challenge with the same prayer and on the same facts was not competent on the principle of res judiciata. In view of above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.