ABID HUSSAIN vs State S — 2022 PCrLJ 83 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ABID HUSSAIN VS State 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---Petitioner 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 court in arriving at the truth and aided it in ensuring substantial and effective justice---Reinvestigation, further investigation or transfer of investigation was permissible even after submission of challan or for that matter framing of charge till the time the trial was concluded, however, at the same time, it did not mean that change of investigation or further investigation could be ordered as par for the course---Certain postulates existed that had to be met before an order for further investigation or reinvestigation or transfer thereof could be passed---Such an order might be passed if some new event or incident was discovered warranting reinvestigation or further investigation---Such an order could also be made if some new evidence was discovered---Such an order could also be passed if the previous investigations had been conducted unilaterally without associating the actual culprit involved and without trying to identify and ascertain the person responsible for committing the crime---Police did not have an unfettered power in that respect and reinvestigation or further investigation might only be carried out if some further material relating to the case was required or if the previous investigation was malafide or in excess of jurisdiction---More alarming was the question as to why the petitioner had filed the petition---Petitioner had challenged an order directing investigation in a case, where if the complainants' version was accepted, then the petitioner got away scot free and did not have to face the inconvenience of a trial, why should he challenge such an order was only reflective of the presence of ulteriors in the matter---approach of petitioner to High Court, in such circumstances, was indeed questionable and made his locus standi somewhat suspected---Constitutional petition failed and was dismissed, in circumstances.

ABID HUSSAIN vs State S — 2022 PCrLJ 83 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 PCRLJ