SAFIA BEGUM vs S.H.O. POLICE STATION GARH MAHARAJA, DISTRICT JHANG
This writ petition challenged an order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police transferring the investigation of a criminal case to the Superintendent of Police, Range Crimes, Faisalabad, after the initial investigation had already resulted in a challan being submitted to the trial court. The petitioner, who had been declared innocent in the initial police report, argued that once a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is submitted, the police lack the legal authority to initiate a fresh or further investigation. The Lahore High Court examined the contention and rejected the petitioner's argument. The Court held that the police remain competent to conduct further investigations even after the submission of a challan to the court. The Court clarified that this authority persists even if the trial court has taken cognizance of the offence and commenced recording evidence. Consequently, finding no merit in the petitioner's legal position, the High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, affirming the police's power to conduct subsequent investigations.
- Does the police have the authority to conduct further investigations after the submission of a challan to the court?
- Does the commencement of trial proceedings and the recording of evidence by a court preclude the police from conducting further investigations?
- Can a police investigation be transferred to another officer or department after the initial challan has been filed?
- Section 322, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance 1979
- Section 109, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance 1979
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 320, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance 1979
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a case F.I.R. No,154 of 15-6-1992 under section 322/109, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance and section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979 was registered at Police Station Garh Maharaja against Nasir All etc. And the petitioner and her husband' were stated to be accused of conspiracy in the crime; that after due investigation, the petitioner and her husband were declared innocent, while Nasir and Irshad were challaned to Court to face their trial under section 320 of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance.
2. It is further submitted that to perpetrate the agony of the petitioner the investigation of the case stands transferred under the orders of D.I.-G. Police to S.P. Range Crimes, Faisalabad. The learned counsel submits that the said order dated 29-7-1992 is unwarranted, as it will open the investigation afresh, in spite of the fact that the challan has already been put in Court. He has laid great emphasis on the point that after the report under section 173, Cr.P.C., no fresh investigation could be undertaken by the police. He relies on Asghar Ali v. The State 1983 P Cr. L J 2187 and Din Muhammad Shakir alias D.M. Shakir v. D.S.P., Ichhra, Lahore PLD 1977 Lahore 180.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel but I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. The authorities cited by the learned counsel deal with the cases, which were cancelled by the Courts and the facts mentioned therein were materially different from that of the case in hand.
4. I may not be wrong in making observation that the police would be competent to carry out multiple investigation, even after submission of the challan. Reference in this behalf could be made to Ata Muhammad v. I.-G. Police reported as PLD 1965 Lah. 734. It would also be helpful if in this context 1975 P Cr. L J 120 is also taken note of. It was observed therein that after submission of challan, police may still make further investigations, and the position will not change even if cognizance of offence already taken by the Court and recording of evidence commenced.
Being fortified in my view by the above-said authorities, I find no substance in this writ petition and proceed to dismiss the same in limine.
Writ .
Cited by 5 cases
- MUHAMMAD DIN vs DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, SHEIKHUPURA 2004 YLR 1529
- ASIF ALI ZARDARI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others 2002 P Cr. L J 310
- NOOR AHMAD., vs PUNJAB, LAHORE 2000 YLR 1137
- IFTIKHAR AHMAD vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER and others 1999 P Cr. L J 1831
- HAQ NAWAZ and others vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE and others 1999 P Cr. L J 1144