' MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J. --- The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, contending that he was an accused of case FIR No,07 dated 12.1.2014 registered under Section 395 PPC at P.S. City Kehror Pacca, District Lodhran.
After thorough investigation, he was recommended to be discharged by the Investigating Officer of the above-mentioned case. Accordingly, Area Magistrate discharged the petitioner vide order dated 10.2.2014. Be that as it may, this order was brought under challenge by filing writ petition No,2271-2014, which is pending adjudication.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that challan was submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
And the Magistrate Section 30, Kehror Pacca, District Lodhran has already taken cognizance of the case and charge has been framed. He argues that after the submission of the challan to the Court concerned, the Police stand debarred and precluded from undertaking fresh investigation. He makes the grievance that despite this well-known position, respondent No,4, District Police Officer, Lodhran has passed an order to change the investigation. The apprehension of the petitioner is that contrary to the earlier report submitted by the then Investigating Officer, the petitioner would be shown/made a culprit. Learned counsel for the petitioner goes on to argue that it was authoritatively held by the Honble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported as "Muhammad Nasir Cheema v Mazhar Javaid and others"(PLD 2007 SC 31) and reiterated in the case of "Ghulam Sarwar Zardar v Piar Ali and another"(2010 SCM R 624) that after the submission of the challan to a competent Court of law, the police are denuded of all powers to carry out fresh investigation.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No,6/complainant has vehemently opposed this petition, contending that the law laid down in "Muhammad Nasir Cheema v Mazhar Javaid and others"(PLD 2007 SC 31) has undergone a change. He submits that there is no bar to the reinvestigation of a case, even after the submission of a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. In support of this proposition, he has placed reliance on the judgments reported as "Muhammad Yousaf v The State and others"(2000 SCM R 453), "Bahadur Khan v Muhammad Azam and 2 others"(2006 SCM R 373) and "Raja Khurshid Ahmed v Muhammad Bilal and others"(2014 SCM R 474).
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No, 6 besides going through the record appended to the writ petition.
' 5 As noted in paragraph No,1 of this order, the Investigating Officer of the above -mentioned case had recommended that the petitioner was to be discharged from the case. The Area Magistrate saw eye to eye with him. Resultantly, he discharged the petitioner vide order dated 10.2.2014. But the complainant did not take the aforesaid order lying down, and he filed W.P.No,2271- 2014, which is pending adjudication. Meanwhile, he got the investigation of the case changed by invoking Section 18-A of the Police Order, 2002. This has obliged the petitioner to file the instant writ petition, seeking a direction to respondents Nos.3 to 5 to restrain them from carrying out reinvestigation of the aforementioned case.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused. But I am unable to agree with the proposition of law canvassed by him. No doubt, at one time, the superior Courts were of the view that after submission of the challan, the police authorities were not vested with any authority to reinvestigate a case but of late, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has laid down that the submission of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
Is no bar to the reinvestigating of a case. I can do no better than making a reference to the observations made in the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No,6. In the case of "Muhammad Yousaf v The State and others"(2000 SCMR 453), it was held that: ' " We may add that since there is no legal bar on the re-investigation of the case, even after the submission of final report under section 173, Cr.P.C., the police may carry out fresh investigation and submit its report to the Court--."
' In the same way, it was observed in the case of "Bahadur Khan v Muhammad Azam and 2 others"
(2006 SCMR 373) that: ' " no legal bar existed for reinvestigation of a criminal case after submission of final report under section 173, Cr.P.C. And the police could carry out the fresh investigation and submit its report to the Court but this would not mean that in a case in which earlier, after completion of investigation challan was submitted for trial of the offence for any offence on which an accused/accused persons have been tried and the case finally decided upto the level of the High Court and by this Court, as the case may be, to entertain the subsequent challan submitted as the result of reinvestigation/further investigation of the case by the police on the happening of a subsequent incident and to proceed with the trial of the case in the normal course oblivious of the facts of the case decided earlier by such Court---."
' In quite a recent judgment reported as "Raja Khurshid Ahmed v Muhammad Bilal and others"(2014 SCM R 474), the aforesaid statement of law was reiterated.
7. As for the argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that each case proceeds on its own facts, I have no quarrel with this proposition of law. But when there is no statutory bar to the reinvestigation of a case, and Section 18-A of the Police Order, 2002 clearly recognizes this, I have not been able to persuade myself with his contention that in the instant case, the law laid down in the judgments cited by the learned counsel for respondent No,6/complainant is not attracted. As regards his emphasis on a sentence occurring in the judgment reported as "Raja Khurshid Ahmed v Muhammad Bilal and others"(2014 SCM R 474) (supra)that reinvestigation cannot be carried out after the disposal of the case by the trial Court, suffice it to say that "disposal" therein connotes the holding of a fullfledged trial whereafter the trial, Court would record a final judgment/order as to the conviction or acquittal of an accused. Only in that event, the police would stand precluded from carrying out reinvestigation. But in the instant case, the accused/petitioner is yet to face the charge and stand trial. Earlier, he was simply ordered by the Area Magistrate to be discharged, which order was passed by him on the executive side, and could not, under any circumstances, be regarded as a judicial one. Even otherwise, the discharge order made by the Area Magistrate is the subject matter of W.P.No,2271-2014, which is pending adjudication before this Court. I would exercise restraint to make any further observation in this regard.
8. For what has been stated above, this writ petition is devoid of any merits and is hereby dismissed. Writ .