FARRUKH GULZAR AWAN, J.--Through this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, the petitioner has assailed the investigation proceedings conducted by respondent No.1 in case FIR No.561 dated 6.12.2014 originally registered under Sections 365/511, P.P.C. At Police Station Dinga District Gujrat.
2. Succinctly, the facts of the case arethat Shamoon Ayub respondent No.3 got registered the aforesaid case at Police Station Dinga District Gujrat with the allegation that on 29.11.2014 at about 8:45 a.m. The complainant along with Muhammad Ali and Haji Zahid were standing at Gujrat Road near Phatak when Mian Iftikhar Hussain (petitioner) armed with Kalashnikov and Khalid Hussain armed with Kalashnikov came there on a car and started abusing Muhammad Ali. Mian Iftikhar Hussain gave severe beating with the butt of his Kalashnikov to Muhammad Ali and forcibly boarded Muhammad Ali on their car and went away. During investigation offence under Sections 365/511 was substituted with offence under Section 342/34, P.P.C. And offences under Sections 337- F(vi)/337-F(i), P.P.C. Were added. After thorough investigation vide case diary No.56 dated 30.5.2015 Mian Iftikhar Hussain petitioner was found not involved while Khalid Mehmood and Javed Akhtar were found involved in this case and report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. Was submitted in the Court wherein the trial has commenced and the learned trial Court, after framing of charge, has fixed the case for recording of prosecution evidence.
3. During the pendency of said case, respondent No.3/complainant submitted application for 2nd change of investigation which was entrusted to SSP/RIB, Gujranwala vide impugned order No.26453/R.RPO dated 22.6.2015 of the RPO Gujranwala Region. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that once challan is submitted in the Court and the Court has taken the cognizance of the matter, no new investigation can be ordered by the police and such act of the police can come with certain verdict over and above the learned Court, who is ceased with the matter; that respondent No.3 is highly influential person, who has got managed the 2nd change of investigation, which is in violation of the provisions of Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002, therefore, the impugned order for 2nd change of investigation be set aside.
Relies on case titled "Qari Muhammad Rafique v. Additional Inspector-General of Police (Inv.)
Punjab and others" (2014 SCMR 1499 [Supreme Court of Pakistan]).
5. On the other hand, learned A.A.G. Assisted by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 has opposed this petition and it is contended that there is no bar to the re investigation of a. Criminal case and the police is always at liberty to submit supplementary Challan even after submission of the final report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. Relies on case titled"Raja Khurshid Ahmad v. Muhammad Bilal and others" (2014 SCMR 474 [Supreme Court of Pakistani), "Bahadur Khan v. Muhammad Azam and 2 others" (2006 SCMR 373 [Supreme Court of Pakistan]) and "Khalid Javed v. Board through Deputy Inspector-General of Police (Investigation), Lahore and 5 others" (PLD 2009 Lahore 101).
6. Report and parawise comments have also been received on behalf of respondent No. l(Deputy Superintendent of Police) Regional Investigation Branch, Gujranwala.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.3, learned A.A.G. For the State and have also gone through the record.
8. This case FIR No:561 was registered on 6.12.2014 under Sections 365/ 511, P.P.C. At Police Station Dinga District Gujrat and during first round of investigation, the nominated accused of the FIR were found involved in this case and certain offences were added. During second round of investigation, Mian Iftikhar Ahmad petitioner was found not involved whereas Khalid Mehmood and Javed Akhtar were found involved in this case and challan was sent up to the Court for trial vide case diary No.56 dated 30.5.2015. Thereafter, respondent No.3/complainant being dissatisfied from the aforesaid two successive investigations, again moved for the change of investigation whereupon the Regional Police Officer, Gujranwala Region transferred the 2nd investigation of the case to SSP/RIB, Gujranwala vide impugned order No.26453/R.RPO dated 22.6.2015.
9. Article 18-A of the Punjab PoliceOrder (Amendment) Ordinance 2013 (Ordinance II of 2013) deals with the subject which is re-produced for ready reference:-- "18A Transfer of investigation.---(1) Within seven working days of the filing of an application, the Head of District Police may, after obtaining opinion of the District Standing Board and for reasons to be recorded in writing, transfer investigation of a case from the investigation office to any other investigation officer or a team of investigation officers or a rank equal to or higher than the rank of previous investigation officer.
(2) If the Head of District Police has decided an application for transfer of investigation, the Regional Police Officer may, within seven working days of the filing of an application, after obtaining opinion of the Regional Standing Board and for reasons to be recorded in writing, transfer investigation of a case from the investigation officer or a team of investigation officers of a rank equal to or higher than the rank of the previous investigation officer or officers.
(3) --------------"
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on case titled "Qari Muhammad Rafique v.
Additional Inspector General of Police (Inv.), Punjab and others" (2014 SCMR 1499 [Supreme Court of Pakistan]), the challan had been submitted in the Court two months prior to the passing of order for transfer of investigation and at that time charge had also been framed against the accused by the learned trial Court and the trial had also commenced at the time of transfer of investigation and the order for transfer of investigation at such a belated stage was not sustainable.
"Change/transfer of investigation--Scope---Investigation transferred at a stage when challan had already been submitted in Court, charge had been framed and trial had commenced---Order for transfer of investigation at such a belated stage would not be sustainable."
11. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No.3 has relied on case titled "Raja Khurshid Ahmad v. Muhammad Bilal and others" (2014 SCMR 474 [Supreme Court of Pakistan]), wherein the request of the petitioner in the said case for change of investigation was allowed by the Additional Inspector-General of Police after submission of report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. And it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that there is no bar to the re investigation of a criminal case, and the police authorities are at liberty to file a supplementary Challan even after submission of the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., however this cannot be done after the case has been disposed of by the trial Court. The same is reproduced for ready reference and convenience:-- "There is no bar to thtreinvestigation of a criminal case, and the police authorities are at liberty to file a supplementary challan even after submission of the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
However, this cannot be done after the case has been disposed by the learned trial Court."
' It has been held by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt of Pakistan in case titled "Bahadur Khan v.
Muhammad Azam and 2 others" (2006 SCMR 373 [Supreme Court of Pakistan]) as under:-- "Ss.156 & 173---Re investigation and submission of subsequent challan in .The Court---Extent and scope---No legal bar exists for re investigation of a criminal case even after submission of final report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.- ---Police can carry out the fresh investigation and submit the 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 an offence, on which the accused had been tried and the case was finally decided upto the level of the High Court or the Supreme Court, subsequent challan would be entertained which is submitted as the result of re investigation or further investigation of the case by the police on the happening of a subsequent incident and that the Court would proceed with the trial of the case in the normal course oblivious of the facts of the case decided earlier by such Court."
12. Challan in this case was sent up to the Court for trial vide case diary No.56 dated 30.5.2015. On 12.6.2015, learned trial Court distributed copies of statements/ documents to the accused under Section 241-A Cr.P.C., framed charge against the accused on 26.6.2015 and fixed A the case for recording of prosecution evidence for 10.7.2015. The impugned order for 2nd transfer of investigation was passed on 22.6.2015 prior to the commencement of trial and third round of investigation is underway wherein vide case diary No.58 dated 25.6.2015 the investigating officer has joined the complainant party with the investigation of this case.
13. The object and purpose of investigation as well as re investigation of a criminal case is to probe and find evidence and place all such material before a Court of competent jurisdiction and not to satisfy the complainant/aggrieved and if any such material is provided by the investigating agency, that would definitely help the Court for arriving at just conclusion. In this case, the matter was investigated twice and the order for second change of investigation has been made by the competent authority on 22.6.2015 before framing of charge/ commencement of trial and if any fresh material/evidence is brought on record, there is no bar to submit supplementary report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the trial in this case has not been finally disposed of by the learned trial Court.
14. Under Article 18A(2)(5)(b) of the Punjab Police Order (Amendment) Ordinance 2013 (Ordinance II of 2013), the Regional Police Officer, Gujranwala Region has lawfully exercised the powers vested in him for 2nd change of investigation vide impugned order dated 22.6.2015. There is no legal bar for re investigation of a criminal case even after submission of final report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. But the same can be done before commencement of trial. The impugned order was passed on 22.6.2015 before the learned trial Court had taken cognizance of the matter/framing of charge i.e. On 26.6.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order even to show any arbitrary exercise of powers or transgression of powers on his part. Nothing has been pointed out that the impugned order for second transfer of investigation shall prejudice the proceedings before the learned trial Court. The facts and circumstances of the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are quite distinguishable and not directly applicable to this case.
In view of above, the petition in hand is without any merit, the same stands dismissed.