' Through this writ petition the petitioner has sought quashment of F.I.R. No,18 of 2003 dated 21-8- 2003 registered under section 420/109, P.P.C. Read with sections 5(2), 47 of P.C.A. At Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, D.G. Khan being illegal, without jurisdiction and based upon mala fides.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a Government contractor and about a week prior to the filing of this petition he came to know about the F.I.R. That no criminal case could be registered on the story put forth, in the F.I.R. That the lodging of F.I.R. Is based on mala fide and from the perusal of F.I.R. No case seems to be made out. He has relied upon Iftikhar Ahmad v.
S.H.O. And others PLD 2001 Lah. 399 supporting the contention that case be quashed.
3. On the other hand, learned A.A.-G. Submits that under rule 6 of the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985, an enquiry was conducted and petitioner was asked to join the enquiry but he did not join the same and was declared P.O. During the investigation. That challan has been submitted since 30-10-2004 and proceedings are being not concluded there as the petitioner has not joined the same so for and his warrants of arrest have been issued and now case is fixed for 13- 7-2005.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner had not joined the preliminary enquiry conducted by the Anti-Corruption Establishment under Rule 6 (supra) and was declared P.O. Even he did not bother to appear before the learned trial Court to defend himself and trial is lingering on-due to his irresponsible conduct. An absconder loses the right of audience as has been held in Mairaj Begum v. Ejaz Anwar and others PLD 1982 SC 294. Even otherwise, challan in the case has been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction since 30- 10-2004 and petitioner has an alternate remedy for redressal of his grievance under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. As it has been held in Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan and others PLD 1967 SC 317 and Kh. Fazal Karim v. State and another PLD 1976 SC 461 that where an alternate remedy is available in the shape of moving a petition under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Or 265-K, Cr.P.C., ordinary course of criminal procedure should not be diverted although this Court can quash the proceedings if satisfied from cogent material. The propriety demands that the petitioner should have approached the learned trial Court first which being in possession of whole evidence collected by the prosecution during investigation will be in a better position to appreciate the grounds taken in this petition. I have intentionally not commented upon the merits of the case lest it should prejudice the case of either party during appropriate proceedings.
5. Even otherwise, issuing a writ under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is discretionary and the Court has to be satisfied first regarding the matter. In the present case, an alternate remedy is available to the petitioner and as such the instant writ petition is not maintainable. Reliance is placed on Malik Khalid Mehmood v. Inspector-General of Police, Punjab and others 2002 PCr.LJ 1613 and Fida Hussain v. The State 1975 SCMR 150. For the foregoing reasons, this petition stands dismissed.