' SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.---Through captioned criminal revision application, applicant Abdul Hakeem Shar has impugned order dated 12.03.2015, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (H), Sukkur, whereby request for permission to re investigate the crime was declined.
2. Relevant facts spelt out from instant revision application are that applicant lodged FIR No,21 of 2014 at Police Station Jhangro on 16.06.2014, at 2103 hours, which is reproduced as under:-- "There was landed dispute between my elder brother namely Abdul Aziz and Mohammad Ismail and others since long, and they had issued threats of murder. On 15.05.2014, Abdul Aziz went to Alaf Katcha to look-after his agricultural land, and he was supposed to come back on 17.05.2014, but he did not return home. On next day, I along with my cousin Jindal and Qurban Ali left for Alaf Katcha, where we came to know that my brother had left for home in the morning. We met with grazers namely Hadi Bux and Abdul Latif and they informed that on 17.05.2014 at 9.00 a.m., my brother was available with two unknown persons near the River. On 26.05.2014, 1 came to know that one dead-body was found by Tando Adam Police from Rohri canal, so I was preparing for Tando Adam to identify the dead-body. In the meanwhile, Shahban Shar made call through Mobile Phone No,0312-8390925 and disclosed that we should not go to Tando Adam as my brother was alive. Then, he kept us on false hopes. On 09.06.2014, I along with witnesses met with Shahban Shar but he did not reply satisfactorily. Today, I along with witnesses rent to Police Station Uderolal, where I saw photographs of deceased and met with Doctor, who informed that on 23.05.2014, he received 5/6 days old dead-body from police for postmortem, which was almost decomposed and there were marks of violence and strangulation,, and a mark of old injury on his thigh. I identified the, dead-body as my brother. Accused Muhammad Ismail, Gulsher, Gulzar, Muharram, Muhammad Ishaque, Abdul Raheem and two unidentified persons due to dispute over a plot, had committed the murder of my brother and then threw his dead-body in a river,. hence instant FIR. "
3.Learned counsel for applicant contended that FIR was not properly lodged and even its contents were not read-over to the applicant by the concerned police official; that Investigating Officer had not properly investigated the crime; that considering the above circumstances, applicant moved application to the DIG Police, Sukkur for transfer of investigation and conducting re investigation of crime and SSP Sukkur vide letter dated 19.02.2015 requested learned Sessions Judge, Sukkur to accord permission for re investigation of the crime through an honest and well reputed officer; that learned trial Court while passing impugned order has not considered the report submitted to SSP Sukkur along with relevant record as well as enquiry report; that applicant has also filed, direct complaint No, 11 of 2016 against the respondents, which is sub-judice before the trial Court; that there is no bar for re investigation of the crime, hence order passed by the learned trial Court, is liable to be set-aside.
4. While controverting the above submission, learned counsel for respondents contended' that applicant has availed two remedies simultaneously, as at the first hand he lodged FIR, and case was challaned and charge has also been framed against the accused, and on the other hand, he has filed direct complaint, which, has also been brought on record wherein charge has also been framed against the accused persons; that applicant instead of producing his witnesses before the leaned trial Court to conclude the trial of direct complaint, has been pursuing instant revision application, with ulterior motives. Learned counsel has relied on the case of Syed Gulzar Hussain Shah v. S. H. 0 and others t2002 PCr.LJ 1585), Choudhty Muhammad Adnan v. Mst.Erum and others (2011 SCM R 508) and Waris Khan v. Deputy Superintendent Custom, Mardan and another (2001 PCr.LJ 660).
5. Learned APG contended that authority of reinvestigation lies only with the concerned Magistrate as contemplated under section 173, Cr.P.C; that learned trial Court is not conferred with the powers to direct the police for reinvestigation of the case when cognizance has already been taken and charge already framed in the case against the accused persons and case is fixed for recording of evidence.
6. Learned APG. adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents and supported the impugned order. He further contended that as per procedure the trial of direct complaint will be conducted first and proceedings of FIR will be stayed till the decision of direct complaint. He relied on PLD 2006 SC 316.
7. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record minutely.
8. It is well settled that scope of re investigation remain alive even after conclusion of challan but while dealing with the question of re investigation each case should be considered in view of its peculiar circumstances. Indeed, there is no provision in Cr.P.C. whereby trial Court either can issue permission for re-investigation or direct the Investigating Officer or any high official of the Police Department to re-investigate the case or conduct further investigation of the offence when challan has been submitted and after taking cognizance, , charge has been framed. Nevertheless, in such scenario, the trial Court has only option to record the evidence of prosecution witnesses mentioned in memo of challan and conclude the trial on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution.
9. Perusal of material reflects that applicant lodged FIR No,21 of 2014, under section 302, P.P.C. at Police station on 10.06.2014, regarding the incident occurred on 17.5.2014 but- there is no plausible explanation for lodgment of FIR with the delay. Furthermore, applicant had moved application for transfer of investigation and re-investigation of the case on 07.07.2014, to DIG Sukkur, and SSP Sukkur approached the learned trial Court for reinvestigation of the crime, while charge against accused persons was already framed. Simultaneously, applicant has also availed alternate remedy besides pendency of trial of the case and his direct complaint has been brought on record, and charge has also been framed against accused and case is pending for recording of evidence of PWs. In the case of Choudhry Muhammad Adnan v. Mst. Erum and others (supra), the honourable Supreme Court has observed that case registered under FIR was disposed of by Magistrate under "C" Class as no sufficient evidence was available. Against the order of Magistrate, complainant filed application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. and in the meanwhile, complainant also filed private complaint in which accused was summoned by Magistrate. High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction dismissed private complaint filed by complainant. Complainant himself chose such course for remedy by filing application under section 561-A, Cr. P. C, challenging order of Magistrate disposing of the case under "C" Class. Nothing was available on record before Supreme Court that direction of High Court was challenged by accused who could be the party actually aggrieved. Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by High Court. Leave to appeal was refused. In the case of Waris Khan v. Deputy Superintendent Custom Mardan and another (supra), it has been held that Trial Court while convicting the accused challaned in the case had directed the prosecution to re investigate the case against the petitioner who appeared to be the main accused according to the evidence led at the trial. Trial Court had no powers under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, to order for re investigation in the case or call a person who appeared from the evidence on record to be connected with the offence, to join in the proceedings after trial of the accused was concluded. Impugned order passed by the Trial Court directing investigation afresh against the petitioner was consequently quashed. In the case of Muhammad Nasir Cheema v.
Mazhar Javaid and others (PLD 2007 SC 31), the honourable Supreme Court has observed that as investigation report (challan) had already filed in Trial Court, where trial had already commenced, changing of investigation or ordering further investigation the matter thereafter was an exercise unsustainable in law. In the case of Syed Gulzar Hussain v. SHO and others (2002 PCr.LJ 1585), it has been held that successive investigations to be discouraged and such practice was deprecated. If, however, some important or credible material was collected which was necessary to be placed before the Court to arrive at a just conclusion then there was no-ouster of jurisdiction or any legal bar on the fresh investigation.
10. Considering the above fact and circumstances, applicant has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, which does not call for any interference, thus stands maintained.
Consequently, instant revision application stands dismissed being devoid of any legal substance.