ABDUL AZIZ vs S. P. (C.I.A.), SARGODHA and 2 others

ORDER

' The relevant facts are that a case F.I.R. No,96, dated 25-6-1996 under section 337(3)(F) (i)/34, P.P.C. Was registered against Abdul Aziz petitioner and his son at Police Station Factory Area, Sargodha. Muhammad Jaffar son of the petitioner also made a report to the police for registration of cross-case under section 337(F)/34, P.P.C. Against the complainant party for the injuries suffered by him at their hands.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that although the investigation is complete S.P., C.I.A., Sargodha is causing harassm ent to him and compelling him to withdraw from the cross-case lodged by his son Jaffar. A direction is sought to be issued to S.P., C.I.A. To refrain from causing harassment to the petitioner and his family members and to order stoppage of further investigation by D.S.P.

3. It appears that the petitioner feels aggrieved by the re-opening of the investigation lest the earlier finding reportedly recorded in his favour should be reversed.

4. Law permits the carrying out of further investigation if the circumstances so warrant but this does not mean that police has unfettered powers in this respect. Re-investigation may be carried out if some further material relevant to the case is required but not to cause harassment to the parties or to oblige one party to the detriment of the other for some ulterior motive. It may cause hardship to the parties to appear before every investigating officer along with their witnesses in support of their respective versions. It would be appropriate that instead of re-opening the investigation under political pressure fate of the case is left to the decision of the Courts of law where the parties are afforded full opportunity to examine evidence in support of their versions.

5. The police officer ordering re-investigation should keep in mind the difficulties of the affected parties in the production of their witnesses time and again before each investigating officer/agency and hence should exercise this power only to find out the truth for advancement of the cause of justice. Before doing so they should record reasons justifying re-opening of the investigation. They should not mechanically exercise the power vesting in them but should do so after a careful application of mind only to advance the cause of justice. Officers superior to them or the superior Courts may require them to justify their action, because it not only causes hardship to the parties but also impedes the disposal of the case by Courts of law.

6. The Supreme Court has also disapproved the system of re-investigation in Riaz Hussain and others v. The State (1986 SCM R 1934) by observing that the system of re-investigation in criminal cases is a recent innovation always taken up at the instance of influential people to obtain favourable reports and in no way assists the Courts in coming to correct conclusion.

7. In view of the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to S.P., C.I.A., Sargodha to proceed in accordance with the above guidelines so that none of the parties feels aggrieved and cause of justice is promoted. Copy of the order be forwarded to Inspector-General of Police, Punjab for information and necessary action. He should also circulate this order to the D.I.Gs and District Superintendent of Police and other concerned agencies for necessary action at their ends.