Reinvestigation: LHC lays down criteria

Says such order be issued in exceptional circumstances

LAHORE:

The Lahore High Court (LHC) has outlined the circumstances under which further investigation, reinvestigation, or transfer of an ongoing investigation of a case may be ordered. It noted that such orders cannot be passed just because one of the parties in a case is dissatisfied with the investigation or to favour any one side.

In his written order, LHC's Justice Tanveer Ahmad Sheikh rejected the stance of the Punjab Police that re-investigation can be ordered even after submission of final report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and that an investigation can continue till the conclusion of a trial, "because the main goal of the investigation is to dig out the true facts for the advancement of justice".

Justice Sheikh observed that "no hard and fast rules can be laid down regarding the criterion justifying the passing of such like orders, because there is no yardstick, as such each and every case has to be seen in the light of its own peculiar circumstances".

Justice Sheikh further observed that the orders relating to investigation, reinvestigation and transfer of an ongoing investigation should be issued rarely and in exceptional circumstances.

Listing the nine different circumstances when reinvestigation or transfer can take place, he said such order can be passed when certain aspects regarding basic constituting elements of an offence, or version of the accused could not be investigated or new facts, better evidence or further information has become available, which has direct essential and vital nexus with the alleged crime.

"[Reinvestigation can be allowed when] some proclaimed offender in the case has been arrested and important pieces of evidence like recovery of weapon of offence has to be collected and other allied matters has to be investigated.

"[It can also be warranted when] defects of vital nature in an already conducted investigation have been marked/ detected/pointed out [or when] an already conducted investigation [has] remained unsatisfactory due to no availability of required evidence."

He said such an order can be passed when the investigating officer (IO) has extended undue favour to one party by induction of false evidence, or causing some material piece of evidence to disappear or otherwise happens to be biased or partial.

"It is warranted when the] IO happens to be negligent, incompetent or has failed to perform his duty properly; and [when the] investigation needs to be transferred to some other forum or team due to some technical/sensitive issues [or when] there is any other compelling circumstance, which makes it necessary that investigation should be transferred to some other officer."

Discussing another query about passing of an order for further investigation/reinvestigation after framing of the formal charge, Justice Sheikh observed that scope for the same slims down and stands confined to limited circumstances.

"When investigation has been completed regarding an accused person and report under Section 173 of CrPC has been submitted regarding him, it indicates that each and every aspect of the case regarding the said accused has already been probed into and material produced by both the sides has already been collected and brought on file and the IO has also rendered opinion."

The verdict said such orders may be passed in very exceptional circumstances and in rarest of rare cases, where some new information emerges, which requires further probe/clarification necessitating the supplementary investigation for the collection of more evidence.

The case

Petitioner Maryam Bibi got an FIR registered against her relatives—Mukhtar Ahmad, Rukhsana Bibi, Tanveer Ahmad and Naveed Ahmad under Section 173 of the CrPC. She accused that the relative swindled over Rs500,000 from her in the name of making payment for visa purposes.

The file revealed that accused Naveed Ahmad moved an application to the District Standing Board claiming that the case was absolutely false and frivolous. The board passed an order on July 23, 2025 to transfer the case of the first IO to Organized Crime Sahiwal DSP Iftikhar Ahmad.

Petitioner Maryam Bibi then challenged the order in the LHC. Her counsel argued that transfer of the investigation at a belated stage after the framing of the formal charge was deprecated by the country's top court.

The law officer in her written submissions maintained that there is no explicit legal prohibition against the further investigation, re-investigation or transfer of an ongoing investigation and a police officer can submit a subsequent report under Section 173 of CrPC to replace an earlier one either on his own or on the direction of superior officers.

She further contended that the purpose of the further investigation or re-investigation is to gather all the evidence to help the court in reaching a just conclusion. However, Justice Sheikh allowed Maryam Bini's petition by setting aside the order passed by DPO Sahiwal.