FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioner lodged an FIR No.701995, dated 12.7.1995 under Sections 17/22 of the Immigration Ordinance, 1979, with Police Station, FIA, Lahore, petitioner, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith his National Identity Card, under the pretext of sending him abroad for employment. Respondent No. 3 was found involved in the offence. A challan was submitted before the. Court which took cognizance of the offence. Process was issued against respondent No. 3. In the meantime, respondent No. 3 moved the higher authorities of the FIA which directed for the re- investigation of the case. Respondent No. 2 summoned the petitioner in connection with re- investigation of the case but was allegedly mis-behaved. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 3104/1998 against the alleged mis-conduct of respondent No. 2 which was disposed of by order dated 25.2.1998 passed by this Court with certain directions to the Director-General, FIA and respondent No. 2.
2. The respondent No. 3 filed Crl.Misc. No. 249-0/96 for the quashment of the case. On 9.3.1998, the Investigating Officer/respondent No. 2 appeared to State that he was reinvestigating the matter.
This Court directed respondent No. 2 to conclude the investigation expeditiously. The case was adjourned to wait the result of the investigation. The said Crl.Misc. Was disposed of as having borne fruit in view of the statement of respondent No. 2 that he had thoroughly investigate the case and had sent his recommendations 'to the Deputy Director, FIA, for cancellation of both the cases against the petitioner as having been found false. This petition has been filed against the direction of respondent No. 1 for re-investigation of the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that once the challan had been submitted before the competent Court, respondent No. 1 - was denuded of his power to issue any directions for the re-investigation of the case, Reliance was placed on unreported judgments passed by this Court in W.P. No. 26632/1997 and ICA No. 769/1998.
4. The contentions were controverted by the learned Standing Counsel for Pakistan as also the learned counsel for respondent No. 3.
5.. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length . There can be no absolute rule of thumb that reinvestigation of a case cannot at all be conducted by the Investigating Agencies.
Depending upon the facts and circumstances, of a particular case, multiple investigations were not barred by law although the same are to be discouraged as far as possible. There are cases in which the re-investigation of a case is not interfered with that despite the challan having been submitted in a Court of law. In this case, the re-investigation of the case was permitted by order dated 9.3.1998 passed by this Court in CrI.Misc. No. 249-Q/1996 which order was not brought to the notice of the Court while passing the interim order dated 19.3.1998 in C.M. No. 396/1998 of this writ petition. It will for the Trial Court as to what effect and weight is to be given to the findings of the Investigating Officer in this case. The precedent cases relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner proceeded on altogether different facts.
6. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is dismissed but with no order as to costs.