KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner has sought for reinvestigation of Crime No,178/2015 of P.S. Sanghar, under sections 302, 324, 337H(2), 114, 147, 148, 149, 427, 504, P.P.C.
2. The facts of the case in brief, are that on 12A1.2015, one Saud Jamal was murdered and such FIR 'being Crime No,178/2015, under sections 302, 324, 337H(2), 114, 147, 148, 149, 427, 504, P.P.C. Of Police Station Sanghar, was lodged by one Jamaluddin Arain, the father of the deceased, who also happened to be the uncle of the petitioner, wherein the petitioner has been nominated as one of the accused. After investigation Challan has been submitted before the competent Court of law where the case is pending.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the above murder case due to political rivalry with mala fide intention. He, therefore, requests that reinvestigation of the above crime may be ordered to be conducted by a good repute police officer. He has placed his reliance on the cases of Raja Rustam Ali Khan v. Muhammad Hanif and 6 others (1997 SCM R 2008), Muhammad Lattf, ASI, Police Station Sadar, Sheikhupura v. Sharifan Bibi and another (1998 SCM R 666) and Muhammad Yousaf v. The State and others (2000 SCM R 453).
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the material available on record.
5. Perusal of copy of Challan appended to the petition, which is available at page-43 of the Court file, reveals that after investigation report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Culminated from Crime No,178/2015 for offence under sections 302, 324, 337-H(2), 114, 147, 148, 149, 427, 504, P.P.C. Of Police Station Sanghar has since been submitted before the learned Court of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate-II, Sanghar, against 06 accused out of whom 04 accused including the present petitioner are shown as absconders. On a query, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner by obtaining pre-arrest bail has since joined his trial. It further reveals that during investigation sufficient evidence was collected against 06 accused including the present petitioner to proceed against them, as is evident from the challan.
6. Admittedly, in the case in hand, after investigation Challan has been submitted against the accused including the petitioner before the Court of competent jurisdiction where the proceedings against the absconding accused, for declaring them as proclaimed offenders have since commenced and thereby the competent Court has taken cognizance of the case. The Honourable Apex Court has disapproved the reinvestigation and successive investigations of the crime.
Reference can be made to the cases of Bahadur Khan v. Muhammad Azam and 2 others (2006 SCM R 373) and Muhammad Nasir Cheema v. Mazhar Javaid and others (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 31). In case of Bahadur Khan (Supra) the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan disapproved the system of reinvestigation or successive investigations and has held as under:- "System of reinvestigation in criminal cases is a recent innovation which is always taken up at the instance of influential people and favourable reports obtained which in no way assist the Courts in corning to a correct conclusion, had created more complications to the Court administering the justice, therefore, expressed its disapproval of this system altogether and; successive investigation of the case. "
In case of Muhammad Nasir Cheema (Supra), the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that as the investigation report (Challan) had already reached trial Court, where trial had already commenced, changing of investigation or ordering further investigation in the matter thereafter was an exercise unsustainable in law.
7. The case of Raja Rustam Ali Khan (Supra) is not attracted to this case, as the said case was involving an Anti-Corruption matter and its investigation was not yet completed and whereas in the instant case after investigation Challan has since been submitted before the competent Court of law. The case of Muhammad Latif (Supra) is also distinguishable than that of the one in hand, inasmuch as, it was a case of quashment of an FIR and one of the police officers i.e, DSP appeared before the High Court Lahore and stated that the detenue Amjad Ali was falsely implicated by the petitioner ASI Muhammad Latif for ulterior motive and the recovery of heroin from the possession of the detenue Amjad Ali, who was already in unlawful custody of said ASI, was planted against him and such habeas corpus petition was filed by Mst. Sharifan Bibi, the respondent No,1 in that petition.
In the case of Muhammad Yousaf (Supra), petitioner's son Arbab Yousuf, who was allegedly illegally detained by Muhammad Sibtain, SHO CIA P.S. Ghulam Muhammad Abad, Faisalabad, was subjected to merciless beating resulting in his death during police custody and attempts were made to get the offence of section 302, P.P.C. Altered and/or changed into section 316, P.P.C. And then to section 322, P.P.C., but ultimately the Challan was submitted under section 302, P.P.C. In pursuance of the orders passed by the Courts on the approach of the petitioner Muhammad Yousuf, the father of the deceased Arbab Yousuf and thus all these three cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, would not help the petitioner in this case in any manner.
8. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that reinvestigation in this case after submission of the Challan and commencement of trial will not only be unwarranted, but it will definitely create more complications in the administration of justice prejudicing the case of the prosecution. The petitioner is an accused in the above murder case and all the pleas having been advanced by him in this petition at the most would be defense pleas to be taken before the learned trial Court, if the petitioner so desires. Accordingly, this petition being misconceived is dismissed in limine with no orders as to costs. Resultantly, M.As. Nos.2119/2016 and 2120/2016 having become infructuous are also dismissed.