' C.M. No. 1180 of 2007 ' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.-By filing the instant C.M., it is prayed that, order dated 10-5-2007 passed in Writ Petition No.4191 of 2007 be recalled, as the Same has been procured by Iftikhar Sadiq and Muhammad Fayyaz by practicing at the instance of respondents Nos.3 to 6, coaccused of case F.I.R. No. 172, dated 27-4-2006, offences under sections, 302, 201 and 34, P.P.C., Police Station, Garhi Shahu, Lahore.
2. It is submitted that; first Writ Petition No.6653 of 2006 "Imtiaz Ahmed and others v. D.I.-G. And others", seeking quashment of F.I.R. No. 172 of 2006 and transfer of investigation, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22-6-2006 by my learned brother Muhammad Muzammal Khan, J. Thereafter, second Writ Petition No.6911 of 2006 was filed by Yasir Pervaiz against H-G. Police, wherein dismissal of earlier writ petition was not mentioned. This writ petition was dismissed after seeking report and parawise comments vide order dated 8-12-2006. Again third Writ Petition No. 13747 of 2006 titled "Iftikhar Ahmad and^ others v. P.P.O. And others", who managed to get the order dated 26-1-2007 by making misleading statement. This order was procured by practising fraud and misrepresentation. Finally, submitted that; fourth Writ Petition No.4191 of 2007 was filed by Iftikhar Sadiq and others by leveling false allegations against the petitioners of C.M. No. 1180 of 2007 and managed to obtain the order dated 10-5-2007, whereby, the transfer of investigation of the above said case was entrusted to D.S.P., Organized Crime, Cantt., Lahore.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and also perused the earlier orders, passed by this Court in different writ petitions. A tag of war is going on between the complainant and the accused of F.I.R. No. 172 of 2006 for investigation and change of investigation.
' Investigation as defined by subsection (L) of section 4, Cr.P.C. Reads as follows:- "Investigation" includes all the proceedings under this Code of collection of evidence, collected by a Police Officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate), who is authorized by Magistrate in this behalf." . It means that "Investigation" is the other name of collection of evidence in respect of crime. The duty of Investigating Officer is not only to set up the case of the complainant party with such evidence as may enable the Court to record conviction, but also to bring out the truth. The Police Officer is duty bound to investigate the matter honestly, fairly and justly, so that the truth is brought to surface. Such investigation shall not be one side or tainted with malice. The investigation does not and cannot mean that; by hook or by crook material only against the accused has to be gathered. At the same time, it also means that; where a suspicion arose with regard to guilt of the accused, then it becomes the duty of investigating agency to probe all avenues with a view to reach the truth. The Investigating Officer shall be independent impartial and above board and shall acquire confidence of both the parties. Thus, the complainant or the accused, if not satisfied with the investigation conducted by the investigation staff,'may apply for change of investigation to Head of investigation, who referred the matter to the Board headed by an officer, not below the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police and two Superintendents of the Police, one being Incharge of such investigation. After seeking recommendation of Board, the head of investigation shall record reasons for change of such investigation.
11. In the present case, accused of the case showing no confidence on the Investigating Officer, moved an application to I.-G.P. For transfer of investigation, which was sent to the Investigation Board to consider and approve the same. The Board, without assigning any reason, rejected the application by recording "N.N" (not needed". Being aggrieved of the recommendation of the Board, Writ Petition No. 13747 of 2006 was filed by Iftikhar Sadiq and Muhammad Fiaz,' which was disposed of being premature by this Court on 26-1-2007 with the direction that the petitioner before approaching this Court may move an application to the P.P.O. Or C.C.P.O. For redressal of their grievance.
12. It appears from the record that; thereafter the petitioners moved an application to the C.C.P.O., which was again sent to the Board and the Board in its meeting dated 12-3-2007 recommended it to be a fit case for transfer of investigation and the ordered for entrustment of the same to respondent No. 12-D.S.P., (D.S.P./O.C), Cantt. Lahore. Before respondent No. 12 could start the re- investigation, on the application of present petitioner-Mst. Begum Bibi, respondent No.3 in the writ petition, without lawful authority, withdrew the investigation from respondent No. 12 and directed the earlier Investigating Officer to continue with the same. Being aggrieved of the same, the writ- petitioner Iftikhar Sadiq and others moved art application to the D.I.G. (Investigation), praying therein that the order passed by the Board, vide which investigation dated 17-3-2007 was withdrawn by the previous Investigating Officer and was entrusted to D.S.P./O.C., Cantt. Lahore be complied with. The D.I.G. (Investigation) passed no order, thus, Writ Petition No.4191 of 2007 was filed with the prayer that; order dated 28-3-2007 passed by respondent No.3, whereby earlier order dated 17-3-2007 for change of investigation, recommended by the Board, was withdrawn by respondent No.3 without lawful authority.
13. On this report and^ parawise comments were sought from D.I.-G. (Investigation). The learned Assistant Advocate-General conceded that; after recommendation of the Board dated 16-3-2007 and consequent thereto inyestigation was entrusted to D.S.P./O.C., Cantt. Lahore and under second proviso to Article 18 of Police Order, 2002, order for second change of investigation could only be passed on the application of the aggrieved person by the P.P.O. In this case, D.I.G. (Investigation) exercising his authority under sub-Article (6) of Article 18 of Police Order, 2002 and the first proviso under thereto. It is also admitted by the learned Assistant Advocate- General that; the D.I.-G.
(Investigation), having exercised its. Powers under second proviso to sub-Article (6) of Article 18 of Police Order, 2002 become functus officio and was not competent to pass any order for further change of investigation. In this view of the matter, writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 10-5-2007 and the order dated 28-3-2007, passed by D.I.-G. (Investigation) was declared to be without lawful authority and the order recoinmendation of the Board dated 17-3- 2007 was' ordered to be complied with. However, while disposing of the writ petition, it was observed that, if the complainant is not satisfied with the recommendation of the Board, he can approach the P.P.O. Or the C.C.P,0. For second change of investigation under the law, as provided in second proviso to sub- Article (6) of Article 18 of Police Order, 2002.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner, when confronted with this situation, has failed to show any illegality or irregularity in the order. Even otherwise, as stated above, nothing was concealed from this Court as it was purely a question of interpretation of Article 18 and its sub-Articles of Police Order, 2002 and was purely a question of law.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner, when confronted with that the applicant- complainant still has the remedy to approach the P.P.O., exercising her right under second proviso of sub-Article (2) of Article (18) of Police Order, 2002, has failed to make out a case. The application is totally misconceived and is hereby dismissed.
' C.M. Nos. 1181 and 1182 of 2007.
16. As the main C.M. Has been dismissed, consequently, these C.Ms. Have become infructuous and are dismissed.