This writ petition was filed for quashment of FIR No, 267/05 dated 5.6.2005 registered at Police Station Saddar, Gujrat.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, cancellation report was prepared on 29.6.2005 but the same could not be processed on interference of Respondent No,
4. The Respondent No, 4 was directed to submit reply. A reply was submitted by Respondent No,
4. In Para No, 5, he submitted that on 25.10.2005 complainant of the case submitted an application to S.P.
Investigation District Gujrat for "checking" of investigation, whereupon, the answering Respondent No, 4 took up the investigation of the case. During investigation both the parties were summoned and the record of Union Council No, 25 was checked. The Nikah Nama submitted by the petitioners was found fake, whereupon respondent No, 4 directed local police to prepare challan in the case and effect arrest of the accused persons.
3. The S.P. Investigation and Respondent No, 4 are present in the Court. The Respondent No, 4 submits that expression "checking" was inadvertently typed, he actually verified the investigation on direction of S.P. Investigation.
4. The expression "verification" and scope of verification has already been demarcated by Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in a judgment reported as Khizar Hayat vs. LG. Punjab (P.L.D. 2005 Lahore 470) which for convenience is reproduced:-- "It has come to our notice in some other cases that police officers other than those mentioned in Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 have been changing investigation of criminal cases in the name of `verification' of investigation. It may be clarified by us that the law is quite settled on the point that where the law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner then that thing must be done in that manner alone or not at all. In any case if an investigation by an investigating officer is to be verified by some other officer then such verification must be confined to verification of the record of investigation and such an exercise cannot be allowed to be conducted in a manner giving it a colour of fresh investigation with fresh conclusions. The verifying officer has to confine himself to the record of investigation already conducted and cannot substitute his own conclusions for those of the investigation officer and if he finds any serious fault with the investigation already conducted then the verifying officer can bring such fault to the notice of the Superintendent of Police (Investigation) of the concerned District who can then initiate the process contemplated by the provisions of Article 18 (6) of the Police Order, 2002 for change of investigation. It. has also come to our notice in some other cases that an impression is being entertained among some senior police officers that the provisions of Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 pertain to `vertical' change of investigation and not to 'horizontal' transfer of authorities outside and above the relevant District and the latter denoting transfer of investigation by officers performing duties with the relevant District. We have found such a distinction not only to be innovative but totally artificial and self-created and a distinction motivated to defeat the very purposes of Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 so as to perpetuate the maladies for the removal of which the said Article had been introduced. We, therefore, categorically reject all notions regarding such a distinction."
5. The above report clearly indicates that Respondent No, 4 could only identify the defect in investigation as he claims that according to record of Union Council Nikah Nama was found fake whereupon S.P. Investigation could have activated process given under Article 18(6) of Police Order, 2002 for first change of investigation.
6. Respondent No, 4 being a verifying officer could not have investigated the case himself during process of verification and pass direction to the local police to submit challan against the petitioner etc.
7. In view of the above, investigation conducted by Respondent No, 4 is declared violative of law and set aside. This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.