ZAHOOR AHMED vs I.-G. OF POLICE, PUNJAB and others
The petitioner challenged the closure of a police investigation regarding an F.I.R. registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court had dismissed the petitioner's grievance, observing that the petitioner possessed an adequate alternate remedy by filing a private complaint and that the Court should not interfere in ongoing investigation proceedings. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the High Court's refusal to interfere was legally unfounded, citing precedents regarding judicial intervention in investigations. The Supreme Court acknowledged that while courts may, in appropriate cases, direct the reinvestigation of a matter, the present petition failed to provide sufficient justification to override the concurrent findings of the High Court judges. The Court held that the availability of a private complaint constituted an adequate alternate remedy in the circumstances. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal, affirming that judicial intervention in police investigations is discretionary and dependent on the specific circumstances of each case.
- Does the availability of a private complaint constitute an adequate alternate remedy when police close an investigation?
- Is the High Court precluded from interfering in police investigation proceedings in all circumstances?
- Under what conditions may a court direct the reinvestigation of a criminal case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The petitioner's grievance is that the Police has closed the investigation of the case F.I.R. No,95 of 2010 dated 15-3-2010 lodged by him under section 302, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Taranda Muhammad Panah, District Rahim Yar Khan. The High Court through the impugned judgment has observed that the petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of filing a private complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the observation in the impugned judgment that the Court cannot interfere in the proceedings of investigation, is not legally well founded. In support of this contention he has cited case-law including cases titled Ghulam Sarwar Zardari v. Piyar Ali (201Q SCMR 624) and Muhammad Latif v. Sharifan Bibi (1998 SCM R 666). Case- law is dependent upon circumstances. We are not inclined to interfere in the order firstly passed by a learned Single Judge in Chambers in the High Court and affirmed by a learned Division Bench in ICA.
2. In appropriate cases it is true the Court may interfere and direct the reinvestigation of a case.
This petition, however, does not present sufficient justification for overriding the opinion of the three Judges of the High Court who have held that the lodging of a private complaint will constitute an adequate alternate remedy to the petitioner.
3. In the foregoing circumstances, we do not find any merit in this petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is declined.