' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This I.C.A. Calls in question the judgment, dated 14-4-1998 of a learned Single Judge in Chamber of this Court whereby Writ Petition No,2921 of 1998 filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 was allowed.
2. Upon information laid by one Allah Yar, a case was registered against the respondents 1 and 2 vide an F.I.R. No,50 of 1996, dated 24-2-1996 at Police Station Gugoo, District Vehari. The matter was investigated into by the police and the said respondents were found to be innocent and a report, dated 14-3-1996 was filed with the learned Illaqa Magistrate who discharged the respondents 1 and 2 vide an order, dated 22-3-1996. The matter was, however, ordered to be reinvestigated. This time by a D.S.P., C.I.A., who also declared the respondents 1 and 2 to be innocent. The matter was then investigated by Range Crimes, Multan. This time respondent No,1 was found to be implicated and on the request of the said respondent, the matter was again investigated by a D.S.P. Of Punjab Crimes Branch who found the respondents 1 and 2 to be innocent. Another investigation was conducted by Superintendent of Police, Crimes Branch, Lahore who found the respondents 1 and 2 to be innocent. Yet another investigation was conducted by S.P. Crimes Branch, ' Punjab who found the respondents 1 and 2 to be implicated in the crime. This latter investigation was challenged by filing Writ Petition No, 2921 of 1998 which has been allowed vide impugned judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge has not taken a proper view of the matter and that the judgment relied upon by him is distinguishable.
' Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 argues that multiple investigations have been depreciated by this Court as well as the Supreme Court of Pakistan and that after the discharge of the accused persons, an investigation could not have been ordered without the permission of the concerned Magistrate.
4. The point involved in this I.C.A. Is precisely as to whether an investigation can be conducted even after the discharge of the accused by a Magistrate without the latter's permission. After hearing the learned counsel, we find ourselves in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant. In the case of "Din Muhammad Sakir alias D.M. Shakir v. D.S.P. Ichhra, Lahore" (PLD 1977 Lahore 180) relied upon for recording the conclusions in the impugned judgment, the FIR. Itself had been cancelled.
Whereas in the present case, the F.I.R., was subsisting and only the learned Magistrate by means of an order, which by all means is of executive nature, discharged the respondents 1 and 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the cases of "Rehmat Ali Shah v. Fiaz Lodhi, D.S.P. And 3 others" 1994 PCr.LJ 2206 and "Muhammad Akram and another v. The State" 1986 MLD 2439 in support of his contentions, and we find that the said judgment do support the same. A distinction has been drawn between a case where an F.I.R., is cancelled and a case where accused are discharged on the report of the police. In the latter case, no fetters are placed upon the Police to investigate the matter even after the discharge of the accused. Some observations in the case of "Ahab Ahmad v. Hassan Arshad and 10 others" PLD 1987 SC 13 also tend to support the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. In this view of the matter, we hold that in the present case there was no bar upon the Police to conduct the investigation even after the discharge of the respondents I and 2. This I.C.A. Is accordingly allowed and resultantly Writ Petition No,2921 of 1998 stands dismissed without any order as to costs.