' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.---I intend to dispose of Review Application No,92 of 2005 in W.P.
No,18667 of 2005 and Review Application No,93 of 2005 in W.P. No,19556 of 2004, as parties in both the matters/ are same.
' Review Application No,92 of 2005 has been filed in Writ Petition No,18667 of 2005 for review of order dated 6-10-2005 which was passed in the connected Writ Petition No,19556 of 2004, Farooq Abbas v. S.H.O. Etc. In these two cases, report was submitted by the D.P.O. And S.H.O. Concerned, both stated that the case was found false and recommended for cancellation. The report also indicated that accused Muhammad Ali had filed an application before the District and Sessions Judge, M.B.
Din but it was dismissed on 10-11-2004. The petitioner was not represented by the learned counsel as he was not available and reason for non-appearance is given in order dated 6-10-2005. The review petition was filed on ground that the learned counsel was busy before other Benches of this Court as he had heavy list on 6-10-2005. According to him, in view of his absence and lack of assistance, some factual errors appeared in the order of 6-10-2005. The learned counsel also submits that Muhammad Ali has been referred in the order as a complainant, whereas, he is an accused person in F.I.R. No,569 of 2004, dated 30-8-2004.
2. The learned Additional Advocate-General Punjab has submitted that review application is not maintainable.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant in F.I.R. No,569 of 2004 submits that though jurisdiction of review is available to this Court, but the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to urge any ground on which the order dated 6-10-2005 can be reviewed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The brief background to the present review petition is that F.I.R. No,569 was registered on 30-8-2004 at P.S. Saddar M.B. Din. The investigation was conducted by M. Mumtaz, A.S.I. Who declared accused persons as innocent. Thereafter, investigation was entrusted to D.S.P./S.D.P.O., M.B. Din who also declared accused persons innocent.
He also prepared Akhraj Report/cancellation report. Against the Akhraj Report or conclusion of the D.S.P./S.D.P.O., M.B. Din on application of complainant Muhammad Arshad Javed, D.P.O., M.B. Din entrusted investigation to Muhammad Ashraf, Inspector Investigation. An application was filed by the petitioner before the learned District and Sessions Judge in capacity of Justice of Peace against the transfer of investigation, the application was dismissed by the learned District and Sessions Judge on 10-11-2004.
5. The learned Additional Advocate-General Punjab submits that subsequent to investigation of Mumtaz, A.S.I., above mentioned officials were asked for verification of the investigation and not to investigate the case.
6. If the contentions of the learned Additional Advocate-General Punjab were true, then the said officials would not have substituted or given their finding or conclusion because the scope of verification is limited and amply laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in case reported as Khizar Hayat v. I.G.P. PLD 2005 Lah. 470, the relevant pages are 551 and 552. According to the Hon'ble Full Bench, the verification is permissible of the record and in the guise of verification, the verification officer cannot re-investigate and substitute opinion of previous officer with his own opinion. In view of that, all proceedings subsequent to first investigation conducted by Mumtaz, A.S.I. Are declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The concerned S.H.O. And I.O. Are directed to submit the final report in the light of conclusion of the investigation conducted by A.S.I. Mumtaz. However, if a party desires re-investigation or feel dissatisfied with the investigation of A.S.I. Mutmaz, he may approach the concerned authorities as contemplated under Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002, detail of such procedure is identified and shown by Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court as noted above.
7. In view of my above discussion and conclusion, Review Application No,92 of 2005 is allowed and disposed of.
8. In Review Application No,93 of 2005 in W.P. No,19556 of 2005, the petitioner seeks registration of a case against Muhammad G Ashraf, Inspector. In this regard, an application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Was filed before the learned Justice of Peace which was dismissed on 26-11-2004. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in Khizar Hayat v. I.G.P. PLD 2005 Lah. 470 has held that where registration of criminal case is sought against a police officer or against H any other person, but police are not willing to register a case or otherwise are partisan, there is no logic to insist upon registration of the case because registration of case follows the investigation which is also to be done by the police officers. Even otherwise, opinion of the police officer/I.O. Is not binding on the Court. The Courts decide the matter on the basis of evidence. The Hon'ble Full Bench has further observed that in such situation, the law provides adequate remedy of filing a complaint before the competent Court where petitioner can make out his case on basis of evidence available to him.
9. In view of the above discussion, in the present case, since the petitioner is seeking registration of case against a police inspector, the appropriate would be to file a complaint instead of insisting for registration of case. In case, such a complaint is filed, the Court will decide the matter in accordance with evidence and law. With this observation, this Review Petition No,93 of 2005 is disposed of.
10. Before I part with this order, it is held that this Court has jurisdiction to review its orders under inherent jurisdiction as well as under Article 199 of the Constitution read with section 114, Order XLVII, rule 1, C.P.C. For further guidance, reference may be made to Hussain Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi PLD 1970 SC 1. On this point, judgments referred by the learned Additional Advocate-General Punjab PLD 1961 (West Pakistan) Lahore 333, 1971 SCMR 513 and PLD 1965 (West Pakistan) Lahore 570 are not relevant. The said three decisions relate to review of previous orders passed under Criminal Procedure Code, whereas, the review in the present applications have been sought of orders passed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan.