1. Muhammad Saleem petitioner, through this constitutional petition prayed for the issuance of a direction to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Bahawalpur Range, Bahawalpur (respondent No,1) for the transfer of the investigation of case F.I.R No,168 of 1997 to some other God-fearing and honest senior police officer out of the District Bahawalnagar. He further prayed that in view of the allegations contained in the writ petition the Court might pass an order of the transfer of the investigation.
2. 2.The brief facts of the matter are that Muhammad Saleem petitioner got recorded an F.I.R No,168 of 1997 at Police Station Madarassa, District Bahawalnagar under sections 452, 354, 148, 149, 337- H(2) and 380, P.P.C., wherein he alleged that Ghulam Ali and 13 others, while armed with various weapons had trespassed into his house and caused injuries to the inmates. The accused also took away Rs,40,000 and golden ornaments. The motive for the attack was the litigation between the complainant and one Rana Muhammad Arshad regarding the possession of six acres of land. The petitioner/complainant thereafter moved various applications to different police officers regarding improper and mala fide investigation of this case and finally filed this Constitutional petition.
3. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court was competent to transfer the investigation of the case or to direct the concerned police officers to transfer the investigation to some honest officer. He relied upon the following cases in support of his contention:-
1. Mst. Riaz Begum v. S.H.O. Police Station Ferozwala and 3 others (1990 PCr.LJ 1250).
4. 2.Byram D.Avari, etc. v. The State (PLD 1989 Pesh. 145)
5. 3.Sufi Muhammad Din v. Mst. Tahira Tasnim and 6 others (PLD 1978 Lahore 1410), and 4.Muhammad Khan and others v. Inspector-General. Police, Punjab etc.(PLD 1976 Lahore 574).
6. The learned Additional Advocate-General, on the other hand, submitted that the Court had no power to transfer the investigation of the case. He further submitted that the challan had already been submitted in Court and as such the re-investigation of the case could not be ordered in a Constitutional petition.
7. 5.The challan has already been submitted in the Trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out what illegality had been committed in the investigation and what were mala fides committed by the investigating officer. The facts of the cited cases are not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. None of them relates to the stage after submission of challan i,e, reinvestigation of a case. Even in the case of Muhammad Khan and others, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Division Bench of Lahore High Court held, while dismissing the appeal, as under:- "While there is no doubt that there is no bar to further investigation of a case by the police as has been pointed out above, there is no legal right vesting in a party to a case to insist upon such a re- investigation. If it were otherwise a recalcitrant person accused of an offence may never allow a report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be filed by the Police with a competent Court and go on asking for investigation on one ground or the other with impunity and thus set at naught the entire concept of criminal proceedings."
8. 6.In the case of Shahnaz Begum v. The Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan and another (PLD 1971 Supreme Court 677) the apex Court held that the High Court had no power to interfere with the police investigation into criminal offences. The remedy of the petitioner, if he is not satisfied with the investigation, is to file a private complaint in accordance with law.
9. 7.In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed in limine having no merits.