ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J .---The petitioner through the instant petition has sought the following relief: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that, in consideration of above stated facts and circumstances of the case, this Hon'ble court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 12.08.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-II/MCTC-I/ respondent No. 2 and to accept the application under section 22=-A(6) (ii), Cr. P. C. filed by petitioner/applicant, by transferring the investigation to Police Station Crimes Branch to the extent of abduction/missing of two daughters of the petitioner/applicant namely Mah Noor and Maryam at the hands of respondent No.1/accused and then to submit the supplementary challan before the trial court, in the interest of justice and equity ."
2. After completion of the usual investigation, the challan was submitted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II/MCTC-I Quetta (trial court ). The charge was framed and read over to the accused/respondent to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter the prosecution produced its evidence. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses, the accused/respondent was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the allegation levelled against him and professed innocence. When the case was fixed for the statement of defense witnesses, learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner filed an application under section 22-A(6)(ii), Cr.P.C. for re-investigation of the case by the Crimes Branch Quetta.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial court dismissed the said application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 12th August, 2020. Hence, the instant petition.
4. In the instant case the investigation has already been completed and the challan whereof was submitted before the trial court and the case was pending adjudication at the final stage, when the learned counsel for the petitioner filed the application under section 22-A(6)(ii), Cr.P.C. before the trial court for reinvestigation of the case. It is worthwhile to mention here that provisions of sections 22-A and B, Cr.P.C. have been introduced through legislation to provide a remedy to the citizens at their door steps against the highhandedness of the police, if they fail to perform their duties regarding registration of the criminal case, proper investigation or excess is committed by them about their functions and duties. However , these provisions have not been meant to interfere in the judicial functions of the courts if after investigation the challan is submitted and cognizance is taken by the court of competent jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that after the submission of challan how an application under sections 22-A and B, Cr .P.C. is competent before the Justice of Peace.
5. The only legal issue involved in the present case is whether the police authorities were competent to entrust a criminal case for reinvestigation after submission of complete challan in the court or otherwise. In case Riaz Hussain and others v . The State ( 1986 SCMR 1934 ) it was held as under: "The system of re-investigation in crimina l cases is a recent innovation which is always taken up at the instance of influential people and favourable reports obtained. This in no way assists the courts in coming to a correct conclusion it rather creates more complications to the Court administering justice. We, therefore, disapprove this system altogether ."
In this regard, the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled Raja Khurshid Ahmad v. Muhammad Bilal and others ( 2014 SCMR 474 ), wherein, it has been observed by their Lordships that: "It would be seen that as per settled law, there is no bar to the reinvestigation of a criminal case and the police authorities are at liberty to file a suppleme ntary 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 learned trial Court."
Likewise, in Bahadur Khan v. Muhammad Azam and 8 others (2006 SCMR 373), while discussing the issue thoroughly , the august apex Court had held that: "It is well-settled proposition of the law as also held consistently in the reported judgments of this Court and those cited by the learned Advocate-on-Record, in view of the provision of section 173, Cr.P.C., that no legal bar existed for reinvestigation of a criminal case even after submission of final report under section 173, Cr.P.C. and the police could carry out the fresh investigation and submit its 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 the offence for any offence on which an accused/accused persons have been tried and the case finally decided upto the level of the High Court and by this Court, as the case may be, to entertain the subsequent challan submitted as the result of reinvestigation/further investigation of the case by the police on the happening of a subsequent incident and to proceed with the trial of the case in the normal course oblivious of the facts of the case decided earlier by such Court, and; the facts and circumstances including incriminating material necessitated submission of the subsequent challan in the case already having been decided and attained finality ."
6. From the above-referred dicta of the august Supreme Court, no bar certainly exists for reinvestigation of a criminal case even after submission of a final report under section 173, Cr.P.C. However , reinvestigation cannot be allowed when a criminal case has been finally disposed of by a trial Court.
In the case in hand, the challan has already been submitted before the trial court and the case is at the final stage.
Statement of the prosecution witnesses have been recorded. It is a case of a single accused and there is no other absconding accused. The petitioner has not mentioned the name of the other accused from whom the investigation is required to the extent of recovery of the alleged abductee. The only thing, therefore, to be seen is whether in this case there was a need to reinvestigate? The answer will be negative in view of the fact that challan has been submitted a long time back and the evidence has already been recorded by the trial court. Even otherwise the petitioner did not raise any new point in .her application filed before the trial court for reinvestigation of the case i.e. discovery of new facts.
8. It is important to mention here that the petitioner has already filed C.P. No. 73 of 2020 before this court with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, in view of the above submissions, respectfully prayed that the respondents may kindly be called upon to explain their position regarding not tracing out the mived/abducted two daughters of the petitioner namely Maryam and Mah Noor at the hands of respondent No.1 and after tracing out the custody of the daughters may be handed over to the petitioner in the interest of justice, equity and fair play ."
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties this court, while dismissing the aforesaid petitioner vide order dated 14th February , 2020 observed as under: "3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record. It depicts that the petitioner got registered an FIR No.73 of 2019 on 24th May, 2019 at Police Station Gawalmandi, Quetta against respondent No.
1. The challan of the case has been submitted. The trial court (Session Judge (Ad hoc/MCTC) Quetta) has taken cognizance of the case, framed charge and recorded statements of four witnesses and the trial is yet to be concluded. The petitioner has agitated the same matter before this court on constitutional jurisdiction. The record reveals that the petitioner has obtained Khula from respondent No.1 by approaching the court of law. Admittedly there is personal grudge and dislike of petitioner towards the respondent No. 1. The petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this court despite the fact that criminal proceedings are pending against the respondent No. 1. the petitioner could not invoke the jurisdiction on the case matter simultaneously . Reliance is placed on the case of Mehmood Medical Store through proprietors v. Service Hospital Lahore through Medical Superintendent 2012 YLR 174 (Lahore)."
On the other hand, while filing the applica tion before the trial court by the petitioner for reinvestigation of the case it was mentioned in para No.3 as under: "3. That after submission of challan, the applicant time and again approach ed the respondent for .proper investigation specially in respect of two missing daughters of the applicant, but all in vain, hence the applicant had filed C. P. No. 73/2020 before the Hon'b le High Court of Balochistan Quetta, which came up for haring and was disposed off with the observations to approach the trial court for redressal of grievance, hence this application."
9. After perusal of the aforesaid order passed by this court in C.P. No. 73 of 2020 which was filed by the petitioner which revealed that no observation whatsoever was made by this court "to approach the trial court for redressal of grievance". Meaning thereby that the petitioner gave misstatement before the trial court. The jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution is not only discretionary but also equitable. The exercise of such discretionary and equitable relief is governed by the maxim: "he who seeks equity must come to the Court with clean hands". The petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands and did not deserve relief sought in a writ petition.
For what has been discussed above the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed in limine.