LAHORE:
The Superior Court of Lahore (LHC) has outlined the circumstances under which more investigation, reinvestigation or transfer of an investigation ongoing a case can be ordered. He pointed out that such orders cannot be approved just because one of the parties in one case is not satisfied with the investigation or to favor any side.
In his written order, LHC judge, Tanveer Ahmad Sheikh, rejected the Punjab police position that reinvestigation can be ordered even after the presentation of the final report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) and that an investigation can continue until the conclusion of a trial “,” because the main investigation is to dig up the facts of truth for the progress of justice. “
Judge Sheikh observed that “hard and fast rules cannot be established regarding the criteria that justifies the passage of such similar orders, because there is no criterion, as such, each and every case must be seen in the light of their own peculiar circumstances.”
Judge Sheikh also noted that orders related to investigation, reinvestigation and transfer of ongoing investigation must be rarely issued and in exceptional circumstances.
Listing the nine different circumstances when you can reinvestigate or transfer, said that such order can be approved when certain aspects with respect to the basic constituent elements of a crime, or the version of the accused could not be investigated or new facts, better evidence or more information, which has an essential and vital link direct with the alleged crime.
“[Reinvestigation can be allowed when] Some proclaimed criminals in the case have been arrested and important pieces of evidence should be collected such as the recovery of the crime weapon and other allied issues must be investigated.
“[It can also be warranted when] The defects of the vital nature in an already carried out investigation have been marked/ detected/ designated [or when] an investigation already carried out [has] It remained unsatisfactory due to the availability of required evidence. “
He said that such order can be approved when the investigating officer (IO) has extended an undue favor to a part by induction of false evidence, or causing some material evidence to disappear or partial or partial.
“It is justified when the]IO is negligent, incompetent or has not fulfilled its duty correctly; and [when the] Research must be transferred to some other forum or equipment due to some technical/delicate problems [or when] There is any other convincing circumstance, which makes it necessary for the investigation to transfer to another officer. “
Discussing another consultation on the approval of an order for greater investigation/reinvestigation after the framework of the formal position, Judge Sheikh observed that scope for the same Slims and remains confined in limited circumstances.
“When the investigation has been completed with respect to an accused person and a report under section 173 of CRPC has been presented in this regard, it indicates that each and every aspect of the case with respect to said accused has already been tested and the material produced by both parties has already been collected and presented in the file and the IO has also presented an opinion.”
The verdict said that such orders can be approved in very exceptional circumstances and in more rare cases, where some new information arises, which requires additional investigation/clarification that requires complementary research for the collection of more evidence.
The case
The petitioner Maryam Bibi registered against her relatives: Mukhtar Ahmad, Rukhsana Bibi, Tanveer Ahmad and Naveed Ahmad under Section 173 of the CRPC. She accused that the relative gave her more than RS500,000 on behalf of making the payment for visa purposes.
The archive revealed that the defendant Naveed Ahmad transferred a request to the permanent board of the district claiming that the case was absolutely false and frivolous. The Board approved 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 stage after the framework of the formal position was disapproved by the Superior Court of the country.
The law officer in his written presentations argued that there is no explicit legal prohibition against additional investigation, reinvestigation or transfer of ongoing investigation and a police officer may present a subsequent report under section 173 of CRPC to replace an earlier one, either on their own or in the direction of the senior officers.
She also argued that the purpose of the investigation or the additional reinvestigation is to gather all the evidence to help the court to reach a fair conclusion. However, Judge Sheikh allowed Maryam Bini’s request, leaving aside the order approved by DPO Sahiwal.
