' M st . Ghulam Fatima a sui-juris had tied knot with her free will and volition with one Muhammad Hussain. This conjugal union was not blessed with parental approval and ended up in her homicidal death on 10.11.2013, when she was gunned down by her brother Tanveer Hussain; the incident was reported by her father Shabbir Hussain vide FIR No, 395, dated 10.11.2013 with Police Station Phalia wherein her real brother Tanveer was nominated as accused. Subsequently, through intervention of this Court, another FIR i.e No, 119 dated 05.04.2014 was registered at Police Station Phalia on an application moved by Muhammad Hussain husband of the deceased' wherein a different set of accused was nominated. Two independent reports under Section 173, Cr.P.C. Were submitted which are awaiting adjudication before a learned Addl: Sessions Judge. Investigation in both the FIRS held Tanveer accused as responsible for homicidal death of the deceased. It was in this backdrop, that Muhammad Hussain respondent moved an application for transfer of investigation which was allowed by the Regional Police Officer, Gujranwala Region vide order dated 07.11.2014, vires whereof is being assailed through this Constitutional petition.
2. Perusal of record reveals that Muhammad Hussain had filed W.P. i,e, No, 13111 of 2014 which was disposed of by a learned Judge in Chamber on 13.05.2014 with a direction to the Regional Police Officer to decide an application seeking transfer of investigation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. Was submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction, and the Court had taken cognizance thereon, there was no occasion left for the police to embark upon a fresh investigation as by now it was for the Court to the exclusion of all others to decide the matter. On the contrary, it has been argued on behalf of Muhammad Hussain respondent that investigation is an ongoing process and supplementary report could be submitted on any point of time before announcement of judgment.
It has been further argued that this change of investigation was on the basis of a direction issued by this Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the available record.
5. Insofar as direction issued by a learned Judge in Chamber in W.P. No, 13111 of 2014 is concerned, it is a disposal simplicitor whereby Regional Police Officer was directed to dispose of Muhammad Hussain's application within a period of three weeks positively in accordance with law. By no stretch of imagination, direction issued by the learned Judge in Chamber could be construed or interpreted as direction requiring Regional Police Officer to change the investigation; the argument is misconceived. The job of an Investigating Officer is to collect material/evidence to be placed before a competent Court through a report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. And it is sovereign function of a Court of law to sit on the judgment after recording and appraising evidence produced before it, one or more investigations are continuation of the same process whereby evidence/material is to be collected. In the present case, evidence both on forensic side as well as divergent ocular claims stand already transposed into two separate reports under Section 173, Cr.P.C. Awaiting final adjudication. There was hardly anything left which was still to be presented to the Court through any investigative process. It is a common ground that statements of, witnesses on both sides alongwith forensic and medical evidence stands collected during initial investigations then there is left hardly any occasion or necessity to churn the investigative process once again. The proposed exercise is apparently designed to manage a declaration of innocence or guilt by the Investigating Officer. It is no business of the Investigating Officer to issue declaration of innocence or guilt; he cannot be allowed to arrogate himself to the position of an adjudicator. Once the Court takes cognizance it is its sovereign judicial attribute to bring the proceedings to their logical end; any interference with that process is not sustainable in law. Reliance is placed on the case of "Qari Muhammad Rafique vs. Additional Inspector General of Police(INV.), Punjab and others" (2014 SCM R 1499).
6. Consequently, impugned order 07.11.2014 is set-aside as having been passed without lawful authority for no justification of legal effect.