' M st . Naseem Bibi, the petitioner filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, contending that she got ,registered a case FIR No, 299/2012 dated 28.05.2012 under Sections 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-L(ii); 148 & 149, PPC at Police Station Qutabpur, Multan. As she was not satisfied with the investigation being conducted.By the Investigating Officer of the aforesaid case, she filed Writ Petition No, 16651/2012. On 16.11.2012, a direction was issued by this Court to the Inspector General of Police (Investigation) Punjab, Lahore to decide the application of the petitioner for change of investigation by applying independent mind to it within a period of two weeks. Allegedly the order dated 16.11.2012 was not -complied with by the respondents, obliging the petitioner to file another Writ Petition No, 3399/2013, which was allowed by observing as under: "It is pretty clear from a perusal of the order dated 15.03.2013 passed by Respondent No, 2 that it can hardly be regarded as a speaking order. Neither the recommendations alleged to have been made by the District Standing Board, Multan at its meeting held on 06.03.2013 have been reproduced, which could have shed light on the turning down of the application of the petitioner herein for the transfer of investigation from Respondent No, 5, S.H.O. Police station Qutabpur, District Multan nor has it been disclosed as to what were the compelling reasons which made him agree with the report of the District Standing Board, Multan. Be that as it may, the order dated 15.03.2013 falls short of the requirements of law, and the same is hereby set aside."
2. In the instant writ petition, the following prayer was made: "It is respectfully prayed that the instant writ petition may kindly be accepted and the impugned order dated 16.01.2014 passed by Respondent No, 1 be declared illegal, void and contrary to the facts of the case, set aside the same and appropriate writ be issued for change of investigation of case FIR No, 299/2012 P.S. Qutabpur, Multan to redress the grievance of the petitioner and to achieve the ends of justice and equity. It is also prayed that the respondents be restrained from further proceedings with the investigation till the final disposal of main writ petition."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police never carried ,out investigation of the above-mentioned case, justly, honestly, impartially and in accordance with law. That is why the petitioner has been obliged to approach this Court thrice with almost identical prayers. He has made the complaint that in spite of the express and unambiguous order passed by this Court, the respondents are not listening to the petitioner, let alone redressing her grievance. According to him, unless the investigation of the case is changed forthwith, the petitioner would not be able to seek justice from the Courts. It has been further urged by him that proper investigation of a case furnishes the foundation of a just decision on the part of the Court.
4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer has vehemently opposed this petition, contending that the earlier orders passed by this Court in two writ petitions have already been complied with in letter and spirit. He has invited the attention of the Court to the comments furnished by the respondents to urge that in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the District Standing Board considered the application/pleas of the petitioner twice. After giving her an audience, they did not recommend the transfer of the investigation, particularly when the challan has already been submitted to the Court against Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Aslam, Mst. Zubaida Bibi and Mst. Noor Fishan Khan and the Court has already taken cognizance of the case. Statedly, the triaLof the case has been pending for almost two years. At this stage, there are no compelling reasons to reinvestigate the case. Now, it is for the learned trial Court to pronounce the accused guilty or declare them innocent, as the case may be, after recording of evidence.
5. 1 have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Law Officer and gone through the documents appended to the writ petition.
6. After going through the report and parawise comments submitted by CPO, Multan, I am satisfied that the respondents did not defy the orders of this Court. In the order dated 16.11.2012 passed in Writ Petition No, 14651/2012, the respondents were simply required to decide the application of the petitioner for a change of the investigation. In consequence, her application was placed before the District Standing Board Multan on 06.03.2013. However, the Board arrived at the conclusion that there was no justification for making a change of investigation. Since the order of the Board conveyed to the petitioner was not drafted in so many words, the same was set aside by the order 03.12.2013 passed in Writ Petition No, 3399/2013. Be that as it may, the matter was again taken up by the District Standing Board, Multan. Once again, it was unanimously decided by the Board that after the submission of the challan to the Court concerned, there is no justification to re-investigate the case and/or to change the investigation. It was emphasized that the challan was drawn up on 18.01.2013. As was urged by the learned Law Officer, the cognizance of the case has already been taken by the learned Court concerned.
7. It has consistently been held by the Superior Courts that the High Court shall not interfere in the investigation unless there are exceptional grounds and compelling reasons to pass an order to the contrary. In this respect, reference may be made to the following judgments:--
(I) Nazir's case (AIR 1945 PC 18).
(II) Shehnaz Begum case (PLD 1971 SC 677).
' In the above quoted judgments, the Court had observed that High Court has no power to direct transfer of investigation from one officer to another.
8. At times, there are reasons to change the investigation, but the change in investigation is not to be treated as a routine affair. In order to overcome this tendency of the public to seek change of investigation every now and then, a mechanism has been placed by the legislature by inserting Section 18-A in the Police Order, 2002. In the instant case, the District Standing Board who is charged with the task of deciding applications for change of investigation consisted of three Police Officers posted at Multan. If they took the view that there was hardly any justification to change the investigation, this Court would not substitute its own opinion for the one formed by the District Standing Board. The head of the District Police found no valid reason to differ with the opinion of the District Standing Board. He did not exercise his jurisdiction arbitrarily and at whims by refusing to transfer the investigation, after obtaining report of the District Medical Board.
9. The petitioner has still a remedy open to her. In case she feels that a raw deal has been done to her, she might file a private complaint. In that event, she would be in charge of the same and carry out the proceedings as she liked, subject to the provisions of law on the subject.
10. For what has been stated above, there is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.