Lahore:
The High Court of Lahore (LHC) described the circumstances in which a more in -depth investigation, a re -examination or a transfer of an ongoing investigation into a case may be ordered. He noted that these orders cannot be adopted simply because one of the parties of a case is not satisfied with the investigation or to promote part.
In his written order, the LHC judge, Tanveer Ahmad Sheikh, rejected the position of the Punjab police according to which the reinvestigation can be ordered even after the submission of the final report under article 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) and that an investigation can continue until the conclusion of a trial “.
Judge Sheikh observed that “no hard and rapid rule can be established concerning the criterion justifying the passage of such orders, because there is no criterion, as such, each case must be seen in the light of its own specific circumstances”.
Judge Sheikh has also observed that the orders relating to the investigation, the review and the transfer of an in progress in progress should be rarely issued and in exceptional circumstances.
Partying the nine different circumstances where rebalance or transfer may take place, it declared that this order can be adopted when certain aspects concerning the basic elements constituting an offense or the version of the accused could not be the subject of an investigation or new facts, better evidence or new information has become available, which has an essential direct and vital link with the alleged crime.
“”[Reinvestigation can be allowed when] Certain delinquents proclaimed in the case have been arrested and important evidence such as recovery of the offense weapon must be collected and other allied questions must be studied.
“”[It can also be warranted when] Defects of a vital nature in an already conducted survey have been marked / detected / underlined [or when] An investigation already conducted [has] did not remain satisfactory due to the availability of the required evidence. “”
He declared that such an order can be adopted when the investigating officer (IO) has granted an undue favor to an induction of false evidence, or causing the disappearance of certain important elements of evidence or otherwise be biased or partial.
“It is justified when the]Io happens to be neglected, incompetent or has not obtained its duty correctly; and [when the] The survey must be transferred to another forum or team due to certain technical / sensitive problems [or when] There is another convincing circumstance, which makes it necessary that the investigation will be transferred to another officer. “”
Discussing another request on the passage of an order for an investigation / more in -depth review after supervision of the official accusation, judge Sheikh observed that the scope of the same thin and is limited to limited circumstances.
“When the investigation was completed concerning an accused and the report under article 173 of the CRPC was submitted to it, it indicates that each aspect of the case concerning the said accused has already been surveyed and the equipment produced by both parties has already been collected and brought in file and that IO has also made an opinion.”
The verdict said that these orders can be adopted in very exceptional and rarest cases, where new information emerges, which requires additional survey / clarification requiring the additional survey for additional evidence.
The case
The petitioner Maryam Bibi was registered with a FIR against his relatives – Mukhtar Ahmad, Rukhsana Bibi, Tanveer Ahmad and Naveed Ahmad under article 173 of the CRPC. She accused that the relative defrauded 500,000 rupees of her in the name of paying payment for visa.
The file revealed that the Naveed Ahmad accused has moved to the District Board of Directors claiming that the case was absolutely false and frivolous. The board of directors adopted an order on July 23, 2025 to transfer the case of the first IO to the organized crime Sahiwal DSP Iftikhar Ahmad.
The petitioner Maryam Bibi then challenged the order in the LHC. His lawyer argued that the transfer of the investigation at a late stadium after the framing of the official accusation was obsolete by the country’s Superior Court.
The law officer in his written observations argued that there is no explicit legal prohibition against the survey, the reinvestigation or the transfer of an in-law investigation and a police officer may submit a later report under article 173 of the CRPC to replace a previous one by himself or on the management of senior officers.
She also argued that the objective of the investigation or additional re -evaluation was to collect all the evidence to help the Court achieve a just conclusion. However, judge Sheikh allowed Maryam Bini’s petition by putting aside the order adopted by DPO Sahiwal.
