' Abdul Ghafoor Rana has filed this Constitutional petition for issuance of a direction to Superintendent of Police, Narowal not to conduct investigation of case F.I.R. No,15, dated 21-2-1993 registered with Police Station Shah Gharib, District Narowal at the instance of Tajamal Hussain.
2. This case has a chequered history. The petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition No,9719 of 1994 on the grouse that Tajamal Hussain alias Chambar (complainant of F.I.R. No,15 of 1993) after rejection of his bail up to the level of the Supreme Court was not being arrested in spite of passage of 1-1/2 years and the S.H.O., Police Station Shah Gharib was harbouring the accused. Upon filing of this writ petition, S.H.O. Was annoyed and he involved the petitioner and his family members in six theft cases within a period of one month. In this background the D.I.-G. Of Police, Gujranwala was directed to look into the matter personally and have the investigation of six theft cases conducted by a gazetted Police Officer and submit report within 15 days. In pursuance to the order of this Court, dated 4-9-1994, the D.I.-G. Submitted his comments and opined as under:-- "It is fact that Muhammad Hussain S.I./S.H.O. Police Station, Shah Gharib has certain relationship in the abovesaid area which may effect his impartiality and result in injustice to any party.
' In view of this, he is being transferred from this police station."
3. The present petition was filed on 22-11-1994 on the grievance that though under the order of D.I.- G., Gujranwala, investigation of the case F.I.R. No,15, dated 21-2-1993 Police Station, Shah Gharib was conducted by S.P., Range Crimes, Gujranwala who after probe and inquiry came to the conclusion that the petitioner's family members are innocent and accordingly the accused were granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, yet the S.P., Narowal due to filing of the writ petitions in the High Court, started reinvestigation of the case at his own. It was also alleged that S.I.
Muhammad Hussain, S.H.O., Police Station, Shah Gharib who was directed to be transferred and reinvestigation by S.P. Is at his behest.
4. In pursuance to the order of this Court, S.P. Appeared and filed his report/comments. It has been stated in the report that since the allegations had not been proved against S.I. Muhammad Hussain, therefore, he requested the D.I.-G. Not to transfer Muhammad Hussain contrary, to the comments submitted by the D.I.-G. In the course of earlier writ petition and the D.I.-G. Agreed to his proposal. With regard to reinvestigation, S.P. Has submitted that as Mr. Iftikhar Hussain Jaffari the then Superintendent of Police, Range Crimes, Gujranwala declared all the accused innocent and suspected on Munawar Ali, Khalid Ahmed and Muhammad Idrees for the commission of murder of Shahzad Ahmed, therefore, due to this defective investigation, the D.I.-G., Gujranwala transferred and entrusted the investigation of the case to him.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the comments submitted by respondent No,2, S.P., Narowal. A perusal of Annexure "D" to the comments submitted by respondent No,2 shows that it was on the request of S.P., Narowal that D.I.-G., Gujranwala asked him to personally look into the matter and find out/collect some concrete evidence likely to connect the accused persons with the offence or otherwise. I would not have interfered in the matter of transfer of investigation in case the order of transfer had been passed by the D.I.-G. At his own and not on the asking of the S.P. I am also well-aware of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and High Court that there is no bar on conducting as many as investigations to find out the truth as the whole purpose of investigation is to bring the culprits to book and not to involve innocent persons. The conduct of the S.P. In getting order of Sub-Inspector Muhammad Hussain transferring him from Police Station Shah Gharib, cancelled by misleading the D.I.-G. When the D.I.-G. Has reported to this Court in his comments that the said Sub-Inspector was being transferred, clearly smacks of mala fides and against the present writ petitioner, which is obvious from the very fact that within a period of one month six cases of theft were registered against the petitioner and his family members. It may also be stated that proceedings for contempt of Court were also initiated against the respondent S.P. But taking a lenient view of the matter and on tendering unconditional apology by the respondent/contemner, the proceedings were dropped. The conduct of respondent S.P. Is a classic example of defending his subordinate at the cost of misleading his superior and the High Court. I am purposefully abstaining myself from making any comments further.
6. For all that has been discussed above, I feel no hesitation in declaring that reinvestigation of case F.I.R. 15, dated 21-2-1993 Police Station, Shah Gharib by respondent No,2 S.P., Narowal is a mala fide act on his part. He is restrained from investigation of the aforenoted case. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with special cost of Rs,1,000.