' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.--- Through this petition the petitioner has sought quashment of case F.I.R. No,199 of 2005 dated 24-7-2005 under section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 read with section 380, P.P.C. Registered on the complaint of Talib Hussain, against the petitioner and other co-accused at Police Station Alpa District Multan.
2. Brief facts of the case are that F.I.R. Was registered on the complaint of Talib Hussain son of Allah Yar alleging therein that his daughter Mst. Shazia Perveen was married with Mumtaz Ahmad son of Nazar Muhammad but Rukhsati had not taken place. Muhammad Qasim son of Ahmad Bakhsh developed illicit relations with Mst. Shazia Perveen. On 22-7-2005 Mst. Shamshad Mai wife of Falak Sher came to the complainant's house and started talking with Mst. Shazia Perveen. Complainant was sleeping in his house with his family members when on 23-7-2005 he woke up and found Mst.
Shazia Perveen missing along with gold ornaments weighting 15 Tolas and cash Rs,50,000. On search it was brought to his notice by the P.Ws. That Muhammad Qasim, Falak Sher, Khadim Hussain, Haq Nawaz, Nazar Muhammad, Zafar Hussain, Mukhtiar Hussain and Mst. Shamshad Mai had abducted Mst. Shazia Perveen for the purposes of Zina. After registration of criminal case during the course of investigation Falak Sher, Khadim Hussain, Mukhtiar, Haq Nawaz, Nazar Muhammad, Zafar Hussain and Mst. Shamshad Mai seven accused were declared innocent and placed in Column No,2 but the learned trial Court vide order, dated 21-3-2006 against summoned them. Hence, this petition for quashment of F.I.R. And also for setting aside the order, dated 21-3- 2006 for summoning the accused placed by the Investigating Agency in Column No,2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that registration of case against the petitioner and other co-accused is illegal; that seven co-accused have been declared innocent by the Investigating Agency and they have been placed in Column No,2 so their summoning to face the trial by the learned trial Court is not justified and the same had been written by the reader of the Court. Further submits that family suit is pending adjudication between the parties so criminal proceedings cannot be continued. He has relied on Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmad and others 2000 SCM R 122; Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal and others PLD 1984 SC 95.
4. On the other hand learned A.A.-G. Assisted by learned counsel for respondent No,2 has vehemently opposed the stance taken by the petitioner and submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly summoned the accused persons after perusal of record available on the file and the petitioner has an alternative remedy in the shape of section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Hence, this writ petition is not competent. He has relied on Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others 2006 SCM R 276.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and minutely perused the record. As per petitioner's own showing notwithstanding the opinion of the Investigating Officer declaring the seven co- accused innocent and putting them in Column No,2 challan has been submitted in the learned trial Court. This being so the learned trial Court was quite competent to summon said accused if the material available on record so warranted. It is the petitioner's own case that the learned trial Court has been pleased to summon said accused persons to face the trial. The only grievance expressed thereagainst is that he has done so without recording any reasons. The competency of the learned trial Court to summon the accused persons is not disputed and when it has summoned the accused said order cannot be brushed aside simply because that the trial Court has not recorded reasons for summoning the accused for it can be safely presumed that learned trial Court did exercised its authority after perusal of material available on its record. No other ground has been urged to justify the quashment of the case.
6. It has been held in Naseem Baig v. M. Iqbal and others 1991 SCM R 315 that High Court can quash the proceedings if satisfied from the cogent material that prosecution was launched for improper motive to harass the accused or its continuance would be an abuse of process of law. It has been held in PLD 1967 SC 461 that remedy is not to be used to divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure. It has been held in Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammil Khan and 4 others PLD 1967 SC 317 that remedy for quashment of proceedings is not available when alternate remedy is available in the shape of sections 265-K and 249-A, Cr.P.C. Honourable Supreme Court has observed that quashment proceedings at early stage is neither permissible nor preferred and every criminal case should be allowed to proceed on its merits. Reliance in this regard can safely be placed on Akbar Hussain v. M.M.K.A. Zai 1968 SCM R 386; Nasir Ali v. Munshi Mehr Khan PLD 1981 SC 607; Raja Haq Nawaz v. Muhammad Afzal and 4 others 1971 SCM R 698. It has also been held in Brig. (Retd.) Imtiaz Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan and others 1994 SCM R 2142 that High Court cannot assume the role of investigator.
7. For what has been discussed above the instant petition having no force is dismissed.