Mst. Rafia Sajjad Hussain who resides with her three daughters, namely, Tahira Sajjad, Farah Sajjad and Samia Sajjad, at 5-Zafar Colony, Samanabad, Lahore, lodged a report at 8-45 P.m. On the 18th of March 1972 at Police Station, Nawankot, alleging the abduction of her two daughters first mentioned immediately above. According to the report, at about 7-45 p.m. Her daughters were returning to their home, having been coached by a cousin who lives at 10-Zafar Colony, when they were waylaid just in front of their house by Fayyaz Khan and Jamal, shown as respondents 1 and 2 herein. They caught hold of Tahira Sajjad and Farah Sajjad and showed them into a Toyota LEH- 9446 Car, which was parked on the other side of the street and was kept start by Yousuf Khan and Hukam Badshah, respondents 3 and 4 herein. Somehow or the other, Samia Sajjad, it was stated, succeeded in making good her escape. Upon hearing the hue and cry raised by Tahira Sajjad and Farah Sajjad, some of the people of the vicinity were attracted to the scene of occurrence, but when they attempted to chase the accused they sped away the car and also fired in the air. The entire city was stirred with the outrageous manner in which this unhappy incident of abduction and kidnapping of two girls had taken place, in result whereof processions also came out on the roads. The police was, however, able to recover the two girls on the 21st of March 1972, from the tribal belt, as stated in certain reports. The same day the girls were brought to Lahore.
2. On the 27th of March 1972, the petitioner filed a complaint under sections 363, 366, 367, 368, 506, 342 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, against respondents 1 to 4 in the Court of the Assistant Commissioner (Magistrate), Lahore, with the prayer that the accused persons be summoned before the Court and punished in accordance with law. It was also prayed that in the meantime investigation by the police be stayed and what ever evidence had been collected by them be sealed and called in Court. Before any action could be taken on this complaint, the petitioner approached this Court on the 28th of March 1972 with a petition under section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein a two-fold prayer was made, viz., that the police be relieved of the investigation of the case, and the complaint filed by her in the Court of Assistant Commissioner at Lahore be transferred to the High Court for inquiry in its original criminal jurisdiction.
3. The case was placed before me on the 29th of March 1972 when Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Advocate who appeared for the petitioner, contended that the police was not taking interest in the investigation of the case. He also placed before me photostat of two letters, alleged to have been written by respondent No. 1, extending threats to repeat once again the same incident in the event one of the abductees was not given in marriage to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner alleged that no arrangements had been made for protection of the petitioner and her daughters. I, therefore, directed that the Deputy Superintendent of Police who was incharge of the investigation of the case should be asked to appear before me on the 30th of March 1972. Since the Deputy Superintendent of Police was not available in Lahore, the Sub-Inspector who was the Investigating Officer in the case, appeared before me, along with the learned Advocate-General of the Province of Punjab. He placed before me the entire police file for my perusal, and also submitted that the very same day he was required to produce the file before the 1llaga Magistrate so that warrants of arrest of the accused were procured. The Investigating Officer further submitted that under the orders of higher authorities police guard had already been posted at the residence of the petitioner, and necessary checks were undertaken by him and other higher police officers which fact was also known to the petitioner and her other relatives. This statement of the Sub-Inspector was admitted as true by Dr. Khalid, Ranjha, learned-- counsel for the petitioner. The case was adjourned till date to facilitate the police to obtain warrants of arrest of the accused, and also to enable the counsel for the petitioner to study the law on the point whether or not it was competent for this Court to relieve the police from investigation and -also transfer the complaint pending, in the Court of the Assistant Commissioner for inquiry to the original side of the High Court. I have today heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and also the Advocate-General who appeared with the Investigating Officer.
4. Dr. Khalid Ranjha submits that the only ground on which the petitioner seeks an order from this Court directing the police to stay their hands and also to transfer her complaint to the High Court is that the accused have "a close backing of some very high-ups in the country" including "somebody in the Governor's House at Lahore" and in particularly 'named the Inspector----General of Police and Mr. Nasrullah Khan Khattak. In this context he also made reference to certain statements in different newspapers.
The question arises whether in these proceedings it is competent for this Court to make any prohibitory order relieving the police from the conduct of the investigation already taken in hand by them on the report lodged by the petitioner herself. In Emperor v. Kh. Nazir Ahmad (AIR 1945 P C 18), the then Lahore High Court in the exercise of its powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal procedure quashed certain proceedings taken in pursuance of two first information reports. Their Lordships of the Judicial Committee, however, disapproved the action of the Lahore High Court as an unwarranted interference with the investigation. The following observations, in this context, are worth special notice "In their Lordships' opinion however, the more serious aspect of the case is to be found in the resultant interference by the Court with the duties of the police. Just as it is essential that every one accused of a crime should have free access to a Court of Justice so that he may be duly acquitted if found not guilty of the offence with which he is charged, so it is of the utmost importance that the judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters which are within their Province and into which the law imposes upon them the duty of enquiry. In India as has been shown there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities, and it would, as their Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court."
The above observations of the Privy Council were relied upon by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a recent case reported as Shahnaz Begum v. Hon'uble Judges of the High Court of Sind do Baluchistan (PLD 1971 SC 677), where a Senior Judge of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan reading the newspaper reports thought it fit to take action suo motu in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction vested in the Court under the Constitution, Letters Patent and "otherwise" and called upon the Inspector-General of Police to produce before him all "Investigation papers" relating to the case so that he could examine if the conduct of the investigation had been fair and .Impartial, or the ends of justice required that further investigation of the case be entrusted to any other officer or a Court of law. The order of the High Court was impugned in appeal before the Supreme Court on the grounds (a) that the High Court was not invested with any jurisdiction under the Constitu--tion, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Letters Patent, or "otherwise" to interfere with the investigation conducted by officers competently authorised by the Criminal Procedure Coda in that behalf; (b) that the High Court had no power to transfer an investigation from an officer so competently authorised to any other officer or Court, and (c) that the High Court could not claim any right to hold a sun motu inquiry into the conduct of officials discharging statutory or executive functions. The contentions were accepted, and the order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan was set aside being "unwarranted and beyond its jurisdiction" and it was directed that "the investigation of the case must be allowed to take its own course". It is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case the police have, under sections 154 and 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a statutory right to continue with the investigation in the matter as the allegations contained in the first information report constitute cognizable offences.
5. It is true that, in some of the newspapers, statements have been made, naming certain persons who are alleged to be either related to the accused persons or may be interested in their favour. It is also stated that a brother of the Governor has chosen to support the accused persons. The mere fact that certain reports have appeared in some newspapers, however, cannot by itself be a proof positive of the allegations made therein, unless some person comes forward to substantiate the same. I have perused the police file. They have recorded statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. None of the persons who appeared before the police has made any statement in support of these allegations. On the last date of hearing, I had told the Investigating Officer to record evidence of the persons whom the petitioner might like to produce. He has today stated that the petitioner did not produce any person for his statement Dr. Khalid Ranjha admits that no person was, in fact, produced by the petitioner before the police for recording of his statement. It is, therefore, not the case of the petitioner that the police has failed to record statement of any person. The Investigating Officer has undertaken that even now -if the petitioner produces any person for a statement relevant to the facts of the case, he will duly record the same.
The apprehension of the petitioner, based as it is on the reports in the newspapers, that the police may not take any action, or that the Governor may be interested in favour of the accused persons, is not well-founded. It is a fact of which I can take judicial notice, that under the orders of the Governor himself, one of his brothers who attempted to approach him in some matter, has since been detained. If the Governor could go to that extent, one cannot expect that he would show any amount of interest for the accused persons in this case. This shall, however, not to be understood to mean that I am, in any way, subscribing to the view that a brother of the Governor is, in fact, interfering in the matter. It is also a matter of record that the Governor of the Punjab had take up the matter at personal level with the Governor of the North-West Frontier Province for the recovery of the two girls who, at is now unmistak--ably established by the medical evidence, have returned safe without any blemish or stigma on their modesty. The petitioner, if she so wishes, can by all means substantiate the allegations as are contained in the newspapers, but it is not possible for this Court to give much credit to the same, particularly in view of the following observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shahnaz Begum's case, referred to above: - "Before concluding we must also observe that while we appreciate the anxiety which the learned Judge displayed in this case to secure what he thought would advance the ends of justice we would like to add by way of caution that it is of the utmost importance to remember that a superior Court should not allow itself to be influenced by sensational reports ill newspapers or by what he may have heard or read outside the Court, for in the first case it may unwittingly be encouraging a trial by the press and in the other case unnecessarily be exposing itself to the criticism that its actions are motivated by bias: -
6. In the present case the police have recorded evidence of all the relevant witnesses and if the accused had been arrested they would have been in a position even to submit the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Investigating Officer submitted) that although their all efforts to find out the whereabouts of the accused persons have so far proved futile, yet they were taking every possible step to secure their arrests. In these circumstances, to transfer the complaint to the High Court for inquiry in its original criminal jurisdiction at this stage when the accused have not been arrested and the investigation is otherwise quite complete, would certainly amount to interrupting the ordinary course of the administration of criminal justice in the manner provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure in addition to setting up a wrong precedent by which the cause of justice instead of being advanced would really, be stifled.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed in limine.