ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR, J. Through this petition, the petitioner seeks direction to the respondent No. 4 (SSP ICT) for transparent investigation of the matter in accordance with the law, arrest of the accused for recovery of the articles and ransom amount.
2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner has lodged FIR No. 228, dated 20.10.2021 under Sections 365, 354, 420 & 34 PPC with Police Station Banigala, Islamabad, with the allegations that on12.10.2021, he along with his wife and son-in-law was present at Zoom Petrol Pump Banigala Islamabad for refueling of the vehicle when four vehicles intercepted them. The persons boarded on the said vehicles were equipped with deadly weapons. The incident was also captured by CCTV Camera, installed at the Petrol Pump and the footage was handed over to the Investigating Officer. It is further alleged that the accused persons kidnapped his wife and demanded ransom for her release. The kidnapers/accused persons also took away the two vehicles belonging to the petitioner along with cash amount out of the purse of abducte e snatched gold ornaments from the abductee. After three days of the incident, the accused persons released the abductee at Imran Chowk, Banigala, Islamabad.
3. The petitioner alleges that the police personnel failed to perform their duties and the I.O. of the case has deliberately and intentionally joined hands with the real culprits and declared them innocent and got recorded statement while hearing pre arrest bail petition of proposed accused that they are no more required for arrest, hence instant petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that application was submitted for the registration of FIR which disclosed the commission of an offence under Section 365-A but the concerned I.O has not inserted the proper sections of law in the FIR; that the gold ornaments snatched by the accused perso ns and Vehicle Honda BRV are yet to be recovered from the custody of accused persons; that the police have no authority to declare any person innocent or guilty rather the determination of guilt or innocence is sole prerogative of the competent Court of law; that the ransom amount was paid in front of the gate of P.S. Banigala but the I.O of the case deliberately not collected the CCTV footage of the above mentioned location which shows clear malafide on the part of I.O.; that the respondent No. 3 is silent regarding the recovery of articles as alleged in the FIR by the complainant; that the respondent No. 2 have not considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and just relied upon the statement of the I.O and declared the accused innocent. Petitioner has relied upon the case law reported as Muhammad Irshad Khan v. Chairma n, NAB & 2 others (2007 P.Cr.LJ 1957), Raja Rustam Ali Khan v.
Muhammad Hanif & 6 others ( 1997 SCMR 2008 ).
5. Learned State Counsel while advancing the details of the investigation prays for the dismissal of the instant writ petition.
6. Arguments heard, record perused.
7. Perusal of record reveals that earlier the petitioner filed an application under Section 22-A & B Cr.P.C. before the Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace for change of investigation which was allowed vide order dated 18.01.2022 and the investigation was entrusted to respondent No.3 (Muhammad Sohail, I.O.-SHO P .S. Nailore, Islamabad).
8. The report of SSP, Islamabad filed before the Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace reveals that petitioner is also subject of an FIR registered at P.S. Kahna, Lahore, on the complaint of Kashif Majeed, one of the accused in the FIR got registered by the petitioner at P.S. Bani Gala, Islamabad. The petitioner and said Kashif Majeed are brother-in-law and husband of two real sisters and as per the report, there is dispute over money between the parties and both have got registered cases against each other .
9. It is also noticed that the petitioner himself earlier got transferred the investigation to the respondent No.3 and through the instant petition alleges malafide on the part of the Investigating Agency . The prayer to cause arrest and to recover the article and ransom amount does form part of investigation process and it is settled principle that this Court cannot indulge in or issue any direction to mend the process of investigation in any way as it would amount to cause interference within the domain of the Investigating Agency .
10. The second limb of the prayer pertains to the transfer of investigation which as mentioned above was earlier got transferred by the petitioner himself under the orders of the Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace. Any conclusion of investigation would be subject to the order of court of competent jurisdiction where the petitioner may have a right to question the same.
11. As mentioned above, no direction for causing arrest and recovery of any incriminating material as prayed for can be issued while for the change of investigation second time, petitioner retains remedy before the respondent No.4 and before Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace in terms of Section 22-A(6)(ii) Cr P. C. Consequently , instant writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed.