IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.--- The petitioner by way of instant constitutional petition has prayed for the following relief;
(a) That this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to dispose of application of the petitioner pending before respondent No.1 by conducting impartial and fair afresh inquiry/investigation of case/crime No.'33/2019, of P.S B-Section Thull and further be please to direct the respondent No.2 not to cause harassment to the petitioner directly or indirectly by issuing threats of registering of criminal cases against the petitioner or his brothers, any case subsequently registered against them be treated as false and fabricated.
(b) Costs of the petition be awarded to the petitioner .
(c) Any other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case be granted to the petitioner .
2. The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant constitutional petition are that the petitioner together with rest of the culprits, allegedly after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, committed Qatl-i-amd of Mst. Marvi daughter of Dadan, by drowning her in water-course, for that a case was registered by the police at the instance of complainant Dadan. After usual investigation, it was challaned by the police. The petitioner on carrying the feeling that he has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant then moved an application with Deputy Inspector General of Police Larkana with delay of about six months, for fair and impartial inquiry/investigation of the case, the same as per him, has not been disposed of by Deputy Inspector General of Police Laikana. It was in these circumstances, the petitioner has come before this Court and by means of instant constitutional petition has prayed for the relief, as is detailed above.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party and he would be satisfied, if fair and impartial inquiry/investigation of the case against the petitioner is ordered by this Court, as the further investigation according to him is permissible at law, even after submission of the final challan. In support of his contention, he relied upon case of Raja Khurshid Ahmed v. Muhammad Bilal and others (2014 SCMR 474 ).
4. It is contended by learned A.A.G for the State that final challan of the case has already been submitted by the police, on the basis of fair and impartial investigation, the cognizance whereof has already been taken by the Court having jurisdiction and the petitioner in order to defeat fair trial is seeking re-investigation of the case. By contending so, he sought for dismissal of the instant petition.
5. We have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. The petitioner is named in the FIR and he on the basis of investigation has been challaned by the police and the Court having jurisdiction has already taken cognizance of the offence against him. If the petitioner is having a feeling that he being innocent has been involved in said case by the police falsely at the instance of complainant party , then he could prove his innocence adequately by putting his defence before the Court which has taken cognizance of the offence against him. In that situation, the re-investigation of the case could hardly be justified at the cost of trial.
7. In case of Bahadur Khan v. Muhammad Azam and 2 others (2006 SCMR 373), it has been observed by the Honourable apex Court that; "This Court in the case of Riaz Hussain and another v. The State while, 1986 SCMR 1934 seiz'en of the case relating to criminal appeal has held that the 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 coming 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, as rightly observed by the learned High Court that it only retards the administration of justice of justice instead of providing any assistance thereto".
8. The case law which is relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In that case, the issue involved was applicability of certain penal sections. In the instant case, the petitioner under the pretext of re-investigation obviously is seeking declaration of his innocence.
9. Prima facie, the petitioner has failed to make out a clear case of infringement of his rights, which is sufficient for dismissal of the instant constitutional petition. It is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs, along with listed applications.