| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 359 2022 SLD 359 2022 PCRLJ 83 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 5777 of 2020, heard on 9-07-2021. hearingdate: 9-07-2021.
MUHAMMAD SHAN GUL, JUSTICE
Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Petitioner.Syed Muhammad Shah for
Respondent No. 6.Barrister Syed Ali Nouman, Assistant Advocate General with A.D. Dhakku, Inspector (Legal) on behalf of Inspector General of Police, Punjab.
Writ Petition No. 5777 of 2020, heard on 9-07-2021. hearingdate: 9-07-2021.
MUHAMMAD SHAN GUL, JUSTICE
Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Petitioner.Syed Muhammad Shah for
Respondent No. 6.Barrister Syed Ali Nouman, Assistant Advocate General with A.D. Dhakku, Inspector (Legal) on behalf of Inspector General of Police, Punjab.
ABID HUSSAINVSTHE STATE THROUGH SHO, POLICE STATION NAWAB TOWN AND OTHERS
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 561-A
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 561-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 279, 427 337-G---Constitutional petition---Order for change of investigation, quashing od---Allegations contained in the FIR were that the petitioner hit the son of the complainant by a car and fled away being driver of the said vehicle was prime suspect, thus police started investigation against him---On the application of complainant, first investigation was changed---Complainant being dissatisfied with the conduct of Investigating Officer moved application for change of investigation---In view of said application, investigation was changed---Second Investigating Officer refused to investigate the case which brought the complainant back to the position where he was before the second investigation, thus, he moved for the change of investigation---On the application of complainant third change of investigation was allowed---Aggrieved by the said order passed by Inspector General of Police on the recommendation of Standing Review Board, the petitioner, had approached the Court through the titled petition on the ground that since challan had been submitted and charge had been framed in the matter against him, the impugned order could not have been passed---Validity---Record showed that report under S. 173, Cr.P.C., had already been submitted before the Trial Court and trial had also commenced, however, after submission of report under S. 173, Cr.P.C., and commencement of trial, change of investigation was uncalled for and was not sustainable in the eye of law---No legal bar existed for re-investigation of a criminal case even after submission of final report under S. 173, Cr.P.C., but the same could only be done before commencement of trial---Prime consideration for further investigation, reinvestigation or change of investigation was to arrive at the truth, hands of an Investigating Agency for any further investigation should not be tied on the ground of mere delay or that it would prolong the trial---Mere fact that there might be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand in the way of further investigation if that would help the…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492