' This petition has been filed for issuance of a direction in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, inter alia, to the effect that the Resident Magistrate should record the statement of the petitioner under section 164, Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner is a complainant of F.I.R. No,12/96 registered at Police Station Badrian, District Sialkot in a triple murder case. Liaquat Ali has been named by the petitioner in the F.I.R. As the only person who committed murder of her husband Muhammad Nawaz, his brother Ghulam Abbas and Mst. Rukhsana Bibi wife of Ghulam Abbas. It is alleged in the petition that the Investigating Officer has enlarged the inquiry and has joined in the investigation some other persons who have not been named in the F.I.R., on the ground that three persons could not have been murdered by one person alone. Grievance has also been made that Liaquat Ali has been taken into custody by the police but his formal arrest has not been shown in the record. Muhammad Sharif the elder brother of the two deceased persons has also been joined in the investigation, which has been resented to by the petitioner. It is further alleged that she made an application to the Illaqa Magistrate for recording her statement under-section 164, Cr.P.C. But the police is not helping her with the result that her statement has not so far been recorded. It has been argued by the learned counsel that it was Liaquat Ali alone who had murdered three persons and the Investigating Officer is trying to involve other members of the family and is harassing them.
3. After going through the contents of the petition and hearing the learned counsel, I am of the view that the petition lacks bona fides. It appears that the petition has been filed at the instance of other persons who have been or sought to be joined in the investigation by the police. If the petitioner has consciously made this petition, then apparently she wants to save the skin of some other persons who are suspected to be involved in the commission of the crime by the police.
4. Needless to say that F.I.R. Is not the gospel truth. The occurrence need not have taken place exactly in the manner and by the persons mentioned in the F.I.R. It is the duty of the police to discover the truth by joining in the investigation such persons who are reasonably suspected to have some hand in the commission of the crime or who can give information to facilitate its unearthing. The view of the Investigating Officer that triple murder appears to have been committed by more than one person is not fanciful or arbitrary. Unless the petition~ is interested to save some persons of the family, there is no reason why should she insist for the recording of her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Or that Liaquat Ali alone be considered as they only culprit, by the police.
4. The investigation of a criminal case lies within the statutory functions of the police, under section 156, Cr.P.C. This Court in the exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot direct the police to change the course of investigation or adopt a particular course of Investigation to discover the truth or otherwise to control the investigation. The Honorable Supreme Court in Brig. (Retd.) Imtiaz Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Interior Division, Islamabad and 2 others 1994 SCM R 2142, has held as under:-- "Just as it is essential that everyone 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.
There is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without acquiring any authority from the Judicial Authorities and it would, 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 functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary not overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always of course, subject to the right of the Court to intervene in an appropriate case."
' Similarly views were expressed by the Supreme Court in Malik Shaukat Ali Dogar and 12 others v.
Ghulam Qasim Khan Khakwani and others PLD 1994 SC 281 in the following words:- "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.
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 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 functions of the judiciary and the police ace complementary not overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always of course, subject to the right of the Court to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under section 491, Cr.P.C., to give directions in the nature of habeas corpus. In such a case, however, the Court's functions begin when a charge is preferred before it and not until then."
6. To the same effect is the judgment of the Privy Council in Emperor v. Khawaja Nazir Ahmed AIR 1945 PC 18.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is dismissed in limited.