' CHAUDHARY MUHAMMAD TAJ, J.--- This revision petition has been filed against the judgment passed by the Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir on 13-10-2003 whereby accepting the application the case was quashed.
2. The facts are that a case under sections 10/18 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1974(?) was registered at Police Station Rawlakot against the respondents. The respondents filed an application for quashment of the case which was accepted and the case was held to be quashed. This revision petition challenges the aforesaid order.
3. Raja Ibrar Hussain, the learned Advocate-General, raised following points in support of the petition:--
(i) that the case was at the stage of investigation and the evidence had yet to be collected, therefore, the quashment was against the accepted law;
(ii) that there was strong evidence against the respondents the appreciation of which could only be made by the trial Court alone. The quashment could only be made if no case was made out of the allegation or there was no chance of conviction in case the case was allowed to proceed; and
(iii) that the order has illegally been recorded which is liable to be recalled.
4. Mr. Abdul Rashid Abbasi, the learned counsel representing the respondents, assisted by Raja Sajjad Ahmad, Advocate, contended that according to the material collected by the prosecution there was nothing on the record which could connect the respondents with the alleged offence. It was explained that the case was registered under sections 10/18 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1974 while there was no ocular evidence in support of the aforesaid allegation.
Similarly, the version was not supported by the medical evidence coupled with the fact that the respondents were all Government employees who had to stay in one building and also were sitting in the room, therefore, the necessary ingredients of the offence were lacking and thus, it was lawful to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction vested in the Shariat Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record. The learned Chief Justice in the Shariat Court quashed the case when the same was at the stage of investigation. According to the police they had collected the evidence in support of the allegations including a statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. Of one of the accused. The learned Chief Justice while quashing the case passed following order:-- "I have gone through the police file placed before the Court. The case against the petitioners is based on the evidence and record discussed in the above referred paras. Nothing new or fresh connecting them with the commission of offence is brought on record to justify that they are prima facie, guilty of the offence for which they are booked. The F.I.R. When read in the light of evidence collected by the police does not disclose any offence, except that accused petitioners were in the rooms of the hotel, which in itself is no offence. In the circumstances of the case it will be abuse of the process of the Court if any process is issued against the petitioners by the Court on the basis of this allegation and record. Hence to secure the ends of justice the F.I.R. No,171 of 2003 registered against the petitioners at Police Station Rawalakot is hereby quashed."
6. Before entering into the controversy whether the case could be quashed at that stage of the proceedings or not it is necessary to see what inherent powers are. Section 561-A does not confer inherent jurisdiction upon the High Court and the Shariat Court. It merely assumes that there is something as "inherent jurisdiction" and then it saves and preserves it to enable the High Court and the Shariat Court to make such order's as may be necessary to give effect to an order under Criminal Procedure Code or to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. High Court or the Shariat Court have been given power under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. To interfere with an order to A secure the ends of justice. Normally the inherent jurisdiction should not be invoked, because inherent powers are preserved in extraordinary cases in the interest of justice. The powers do not extend to uncalled for and unwarranted interference with the procedure provided under the law which must always be followed. The powers are required to be exercised in exceptional cases where Court is satisfied that continuation of proceedings complained of would amount to gross abuse of process of Court or that it is absolutely necessary to exercise inherent powers to secure the ends of justice.
7. The jurisdictional requirements for the exercise of powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Are:--
(i) To give effect to any order under the Criminal Procedure Code.
(ii) To prevent abuse of process of any Court.
(iii) To secure the ends of justice.
' In order to seek interference under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Three conditions should be fulfilled: (1) the injustice which comes to light should not be of a trivial character; (2) the injustice which is noted is of a clear and palpable character and not of a doubtful character; and (3) there exists no other provision of law by which the party aggrieved could have sought relief. But the other view is that the use of word "or" in section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Clearly indicates that the inherent jurisdiction can be invoked if the case falls within any of the three parts of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. And it is not necessary that the alternatives are read together.
8. It may also be stated that appreciation of evidence primarily being the function of trial Court, the plea of insufficiency or credibility of evidence cannot be a ground for interference under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The High Court or the Shariat Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Will not embark on a course so as to appreciate the facts and the evidence. The Court will not substitute it own appraisement of evidence for that of the lower Courts, so long as there is legal evidence to sustain such findings.
9. It is worth-mentioning that the High Court or the Shariat Court cannot sit as investigator and stop the investigation of the cases, especially when the prosecution is already in possession of prima facie strong evidence against the accused. Determination of the guilt or innocence of accused depends on the totality of facts and circumstances revealed during the trial.
10. In the present case though the quashment was made at the stage of investigation and according to the claim of the prosecution they had collected the incriminating material but a perusal of the police diary shows that the prosecution was possessed with the evidence of a statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. Alone which was not only retracted but many allegations were levelled against it. It would be relevant to mention that the case was registered under sections 10/18 of the Offence of .Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1974, but according to the prosecution no Zina was being committed at the time the police raided at the room where they were staying. Their version was that they all were simply sitting in one room and they were not committing any Zina. It was also included in the material that all the accused were Government servants and they had assembled for some workshop and due to their service in one department had to stay together. The ladies were medically examined but no sign of recent rape was noticed. It is no doubt correct that at the stage of investigation, the quashment may not be made except when the registration of case is without any jurisdiction and certainly the appreciation of evidence is not the function of this extraordinary jurisdiction. However, we cannot overlook the fact that the evidence collected by the prosecution is not sufficient to bring any conviction against the accused-respondents. Therefore, it would be an exercise in futility to set aside the order and sent back the case to the investigating agency which in presence of this evidence hardly could send the accused to face trial and in case of challan it is more hard for the Court to take cognizance with this evidence. Therefore, the order passed by the Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, in the circumstances, is maintained and the revision petition is dismissed.
Revision .