' The petitioner's son Sarfraz Faisal is one of the accused in a case registered under section 302/324/34, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No,56 of 1997 at Police Station City Toba Tek Singh. The petitioner has made this application seeking direction that the application regarding transfer of investigation pending before the respondent be directed to be disposed of in accordance with law.
2. The application is opposed on the ground that the petitioner had made another application for transfer of investigation but his prayer was declined in a writ petition No,6883 of 1999 filed by the son of the petitioner namely Muhammad Anwar, a brother or Sarfraz Faisal aforenamed accused in the aforesaid case vide order dated 23-4-1999.
1.C.A. No,329 of 1999 was filed against the aforesaid order which too was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 29-4-1999. It was, therefore, contended that the present petition is misconceived as previously another petition was instituted by Sarfraz Faisal accused (W.P. No,22957 of 1998) in which an order was made on 6-11-1998 by this Bench that the petition for reinvestigation pending before D.I.-G., Faisalabad be disposed of in accordance with law within a fortnight.
3. In this petition, it is contended that the aforesaid order was not complied with, therefore, the present petitioner i,e, father of the aforesaid Sarfraz Faisal has requested that the compliance of the aforesaid order be made and that the investigation be transferred. In this respect, it is contended that there is no legal bar for the re-investigation of the matter as held in Aftab Ahmad v. Hassan Arshad and 10 others PLD 1987 SC 13 and Safia Begum v. S.H.O., Police Station Garh Maharaja and 3 others 1993 PCr.LJ 97.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has, however, contended that the matter in respect of transfer of investigation has been finally closed on account of decision in the Intra-Court Appeal against the order passed in W.P. No,6883 of 1999. Apart from that, it is alleged that one of the accused is still absconder and as such, repeated re-investigations cannot be undertaken particularly when the case has already been sent to the Court for trial. Reliance was placed on Riaz Hussain and others v. The State 1986 SCM R 1934 to show that. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had condemned reinvestigation in the criminal cases being a recent innovation always taken up at instance of influential people and favourable reports obtained in no way to assist the Courts in coming to correct conclusion. Same view was taken Muhammad Yousaf v. Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 4 others PLD 1997 Lah.
135.
5. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and have also gone through the record. It may be observed that each case has its own peculiar facts for taking decision in the best interest of administration of criminal justice and no clog or closure can be applied so as to stifle the provisions of justice to the parties. It is, therefore, always open for a Court to see that the best possible order may be made to further and advance the interest of justice keeping in view the facts of each case. In the instant case, the accused side has made repeated petitions for the reinvestigation of the case which shows that it is creating hindrance and impediment in the smooth flow of the administration of justice. The occurrence took place in 1997, whereas, one of the accused is still at large and the case has been sent to the Court concerned for trial. In such a situation, and particularly when further transfer of the investigation in this case has been declined by my learned brother Mr. Zafar Pasha Chaudhry, J. Vide his Lordhsip's order dated 23-4-1999 in Writ Petition No,6883 of 1999 and the Intra-Court Appeal against that order having failed, it would be against the interest of justice to make any further order directing the police, officials to enter into re-investigation or to! Make any fresh investigation or to dispose of any pending petition in that respect.
6. The writ petition being misconceived is dismissed.