' SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.--- This appeal has been directed against the order of the High Court, dated 20-10-1999, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant, herein, was dismissed in limine.
2. A criminal case was registered against Khadim Hussain and other accused persons on the direction of the High Court passed on a writ petition filed by Abdur Rehman, appellant herein. After investigation, the challan was also presented in the Tehsil Criminal Court. However, the judgment of the High Court in pursuance of which the case was registered and the challan was presented after investigation, was challenged by filing an appeal to this Court. The appeal was accepted by this Court observing that the writ petition filed in the High Court, on which direction was passed, suffered from laches and, thus, the order of the High Court was set aside and the writ petition was dismissed. However, it was also observed by this Court while accepting the appeal that after the registration of the case and the investigation, the challan had already been presented to the Tehsil Criminal Court in pursuance of the direction of the High Court, the appellant, herein, was not likely to be adversely affected. After the aforesaid judgment of this Court, the accused-respondents filed an application before the Superintendent of Police, Bhimber, praying therein that as the judgment of the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction on the basis of which the case was registered against them had been set aside by the Supreme Court, the case pending in the Tehsil Criminal Court might be withdrawn. The Superintendent of Police sought the legal advice of the Prosecuting Deputy Superintendent of Police who expressed the view that after the judgment of the Supreme Court, there was no legal justification to proceed with the prosecution of the case against the accused-respondents. Consequently, the Superintendent of Police; acting upon the advice of the Prosecuting Deputy Superintendent of Police, directed the Prosecuting Inspector to withdraw the case. The Prosecuting Inspector filed an application for withdrawal of the case in pursuance of the direction given to him by the Superintendent of Police. The appellant, aggrieved by the proceedings of the superintendent of Police and other police officials regarding the withdrawal of the case, filed a writ petition in the High Court alleging that the accused-respondents having been challaned after investigation, case against them could not be withdrawn on the pretext of the judgment of the Supreme Court, especially so when it has also been observed by the Supreme Court, that as the accused-respondents have been challaned, the decision whereby the previous writ petition filed by the appellant, herein, was dismissed, would not adversely affect the case of the appellant. The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine observing that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, whereby the earlier writ petition filed by the appellant, herein, was dismissed on the ground of laches, the proceedings for withdrawal taken by the police officials do not suffer from any legal infirmity. It is against the aforesaid order of the High Court that the present appeal has been filed.
3. Ch. Muhammad Azam Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that the High Court has not properly appreciated the judgment of this Court while dismissing the writ petition in limine because it has ignored the observation of the Supreme Court that as the challan had already been presented, the dismissal of the writ petition on the basis of laches would not make any difference. He has further argued that once the case was challaned, whether on the direction of High Court or otherwise, the same cannot be withdrawn 6y the Investigating Agency on the ground that this Court set aside the direction given by the High Court. The learned counsel has further argued that the interpretation placed on the judgment of this Court by the police officials and the High Court is not correct because the said observations made by the Supreme Court cannot be intended to mean that the investigation made by the police in consequence of which challan has already been filed in the Tehsil Criminal Court would become infructuous.
4. Ch. Muhammad Mushtaq, the learned Additional Advocate-General has argued that the proceedings of withdrawal could not be taken on the ground that this Court had dismissed the writ petition filed earlier on the basis of laches.
5. Mr. Khalid Masood, Advocate, the learned counsel for the accused-respondents, has controverted the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. He has argued that as the case against the accused-respondents was registered and the accused-respondents were challaned in consequence of the direction given by the High Court, the said direction having been set aside by the Supreme Court would imply that the registration of the case and the proceedings of investigation are of no legal consequence. Thus the learned counsel has argued that the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition ' filed by the appellant, herein, in limine.
6. We have given due consideration to the arguments raised at the Bar. It may be observed that the judgment of the High Court was set aside on technical ground of laches. This Court, while setting aside the judgment of the High Court, made observations that as the challan against the accused-respondents was already filed in the Tehsil Criminal Court, the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the appellant, herein, would not adversely affect the case of the appellant, herein.
Obviously, the Supreme Court did not hold that the factum of the registration of case which culminated in presenting the challan to the Tehsil Criminal Court would become infructuous. It may be observed that ordinarily, the investigation never ends. As the Investigating Agency had not registered the case on the F.I.R. Made by the appellant, herein, he filed a writ petition which was accepted by the High Court and a case was registered on its direction. Consequently, after investigation, the Investigating Agency came to the conclusion that the accused-respondents were guilty of committing the offences with which they were charged and thus filed challan against them in the Court. The question which needs for resolution is as to whether the mere fact that the case was registered on the direction of the High Court which was set aside by this Court would render the proceedings of investigation illegal and justify the withdrawal of case. This aspect of the case has not been properly adverted to by the High Court.
' Therefore, we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remand the case to the High Court with the direction that it shall rehear the arguments in the light of observations made above and decide the matter afresh according to law.