Through this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 30.10.2014 passed by respondent No.4-District Police Officer, Sahiwal, whereby he ordered for the change of investigation of case FIR No.200/12 dated 21.05.2012 registered under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, PPC at Police Station Yousafwala, District Sahiwal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner lodged case FIR No.200/12 dated 21.05.2012 under section 302, 324, 148, 149, PPC Police Station Yousafwala, District Sahiwal against respondent No.6 and others; that after completion of investigation, challan was submitted before the learned trial court, where charge was framed and the case had been adjourning for prosecution evidence for so many dates; that there-after respondent No.4 on the application of respondent No.6 illegally passed the order dated 30.10.2014 for change of investigation. He placed reliance upon the case of Qari MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE VS. ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE (INV.), PUNJAB and others (2014 SCM R 1499) and MUHAMMAD NASIR CHEEMA Vs. MAZHAR JAVAID and others (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 31).
3. On the other side, the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 argued that the order for re- investigation and change of investigation can be passed even after submission of challan and the respondent No.4 while passing the order dated 30.10.2014 has not committed any illegality. He has placed reliance upon the case of Raja KHURSHID AHMED v. MUHAMMAD BILAL and others (2014 SCM R 474) and BAHADUR KHAN v. MUHAMMAD AZAM and 2 others (2006 SCM R 373).
4. Arguments heard. Record perused and authoritative judgments of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan considered.
5. The perusal of record reveals that case FIR No.200/12 dated 21.05.2012 under section 302, 324, 148, 149, PPC was registered at Police Station Yousafwala, District Sahiwal on the complaint of the petitioner against respondent No.6 and others. The respondent No.6 filed application for cross- version before the learned Justice of Peace, which was dismissed upto this Court due to submission of challan in the above mentioned FIR case. Then the respondent No.6 filed the private complaint against the petitioner, in which the petitioner was summoned as accused and that private compliant is also pending. The record reveals that in the State Case above mentioned bearing FIR No.200/12 dated 21.05.2012, the challan was submitted before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sahiwal who vide order dated 25.06.2013 framed the charge against respondents No.6 and 3 others. Since then the case is still pending for the evidence before the learned trial court. On 30.10.2014, the respondent No.4-District Police Officer, Sahiwal vide letter No.31894-96/E dated 30.10.2014 transferred the investigation of said case FIR No.200/12 dated 21.05.2012 to District Investigation Branch, Sahiwal with the direction to ensure the early finalization of the investigation only on merits. Being aggrieved of that order dated 30.10.2014, the instant writ petition has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Qari MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE v. ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR- GENERAL OF POLICE (INV.), PUNJAB and others (2014 SCM R 1499), in para-5 of which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as under:- Para-5. "We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the matter before the learned Division Bench, seized of the Intra Court Appeal No.288 of 2013, admitted in clear terms that the challan was submitted in court at least two months prior to the transfer of investigation and at that time charge had also been framed against the accused by the learned trial Court. The trial had also commenced at the time of transfer of investigation, as such, the order for transfer of investigation at that belated stage was not sustainable in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case Muhammad Nasir Cheema v. Mazhar Javaid and another (PLD 2007 SC 31). In such circumstances learned Single Judge in Chamber had rightly accepted the Writ Petition filed by respondent No.6 and had committed no illegality or material irregularity and we also find no jurisdictional defect in the said order. The learned Division Bench had also dismissed the Intra Court Appeal for valid reasons which findings cannot be interfered with by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution".
7. It is clear from the record of this case that the trial was pending before the learned trial court where charge was framed on 25.06.2013 and there-after the case remained adjourning for evidence and meanwhile respondent No.4 has passed the impugned order dated 30.10.2014 for transfer of investigation. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgment referred above, respondent No.4 was not competent to pass the impugned order for the transfer of case, when the challan had already been submitted and after framing the charge the case was fixed for evidence. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable under the law. So far as the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan referred by the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 are concerned, the judgment in the case titled Raja KHURSHID AHMED v. MUHAMMAD BILAL and others (2014 SCM R 474) was passed on 13th September, 2013 by the bench of Hon'ble two Judges of Supreme Court, whereas the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported as Qari MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE v. ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR- GENERAL OF POLICE (INV.), PUNJAB and others (2014 SCM R 1499) was passed lateron on 25th April, 2014 by the bench of Hon'ble three Judges of Supreme Court, while relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as MUHAMMAD NASIR CHEEMA v. MAZHAR JAVAID and others (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 31). Therefore, in these circumstances, in my humble view, the latest judicial verdict pronounced on 25th April, 2014 by the Hon'ble Larger Bench of the Supreme Court will prevail, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly observed that when the trial had already been commenced, the order for transfer of investigation at that belated stage is not sustainable.
8. In view of the above discussion and observations, the order dated 30.10.2014 passed by respondent No.4 for the transfer of investigation of above mentioned case is not sustainable under the law. Resultantly, I accept this writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 30.10.2014.