2026 MLD 118

Muhammad Asif Versus State Tahir Aslam Qureshi

Citation2026 MLD 118

CourtLahore High Court

Judge(s)Shehram Sarwar Ch. and Sardar Akbar Ali

Order

Through the instant criminal revision petition under section 435/439, Cr.P.C. read with section 29 of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021, the petitioner has challenged the vires of order dated 24.05.2025 pursuant whereto the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under section 540, Cr.P.C. to summon Additional S.P. Qazi Umar Farooq in the evidence to prove that Khalida Parveen, ASI/Investigating Officer conducted defective investigation and he recommended her major penalty.

2. Heard. Record perused.

3. Perusal of record shows that the learned trial Court recorded the statement of Khalida Parveen, ASI/I.O. on 05.05.2025 and she was also cross-examined by the learned defence counsel on the same day. On 24.05.2025, the petitioner filed an application under section 540, Cr.P.C. for summoning Qazi Umar Farooq, Additional S.P. as a Court witness who conducted the departmental inquiry against Khalida Parveen, ASI/I.O. and recommended her major penalty.

4. The petitioner is desirous to summon a witness who conducted inquiry against Khalida Parveen, ASI/I.O. Admittedly, to summon a witness/an inquiry officer to prove that the departmental inquiry proceedings were conducted against the Investigating Officer of a criminal case who allegedly conducted defective investigation to give benefit to the accused is not a material witness in the present case registered under section 337-B, P.P.C as he has only conducted the inquiry and even if the statement of this witness is recorded that would not beneficial to the prosecution. Even otherwise, the criminal cases cannot be decided on the whims and capricious of either of the parties. Furthermore, the departmental inquiry proceedings have no nexus/relevance with the trial of a criminal case and does not synchronize with criminal procedure code. Thus, we are of the view that the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.

5. For the foregoing reasons, we have no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, thus, there is no substance in the criminal revision in hand and the same is hereby dismissed.

MQ/M-192/L Revision dismissed.