SAEEN BUX vs CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MATIARI and 9 others
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the complainant challenging the acceptance of a 'B' class report submitted by the Investigating Officer in a criminal case. The complainant alleged that respondents had trespassed into his house, threatened his family, stolen livestock, and damaged property. However, the police investigation concluded that the complainant's witnesses had denied these allegations, leading to a recommendation for the case's disposal. The core legal question was whether the court should accept the police report when the complainant disputed the veracity of the investigation and produced affidavits from witnesses claiming their statements were never recorded by the police. The court held that the impugned order accepting the 'B' class report was unsustainable in light of the conflicting claims regarding the investigation process. Consequently, the court set aside the order and directed the Investigating Officer to conduct a fresh re-investigation, specifically mandating the recording of the statements of the two witnesses who provided affidavits. The key principle established is that where a complainant credibly challenges the integrity of an investigation report, the court may order a re-investigation to ensure justice.
- Can a court order a re-investigation if the complainant disputes the findings of the initial police report?
- Is a court empowered to set aside an order accepting a 'B' class report when witness statements are contested?
- What is the appropriate judicial remedy when a complainant alleges that the Investigating Officer failed to record witness statements?
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' MAQBOOL BAQAR, J.--- In the present case on the basis of statement recorded by the present applicant/complainant F.I.R. Was recorded against respondents Nos.3 to 9, in which it was alleged that the private respondents barged into the house of the complainant. They were armed with fire- arms and hatchets. The said respondents threatened the complainant and his family of dire consequences and on the way back took away buffaloes and goats and also damaged the electricity meter. However, after investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Disclosing that both the witnesses of the complainant namely Allah Jurio and Allah Rakhio have instead of supporting the applicant/complainant, stated that the allegations of advancing threats and of taking away the buffaloes and Goats of the complainant and also of causing damage to the electricity meter are false and recommended the disposal of the case in "B" Class.
2. ' The applicant/complainant through the present application has submitted that the report is false.
3. He has also filed two separate affidavits of the above two witnesses wherein it is stated that their statements have not been recorded by the Investigating Officer.
4. ' I would in the circumstances set aside the impugned order and direct the Investigating Officer to carry out re-investigation afresh after recording the statements of the above two witnesses and submit report within 15 days from receipt of a copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the Investigating Officer for compliance.
5. ' The Criminal Miscellaneous Application along with pending application(s) stands disposed of in the foregoing terms.##TE#
Cited by 1 case
- BAKHSH ALI vs The STATE and 7 others 2013 YLR 1948