1. ' This petition was preferred seeking quashment of No,53 of 2007, under sections 420/406/506/34, P.P.C. Of P.S. Waleed Larkana.
2. ' Precisely, the facts of the case are that on 3-2-2007 at 10-00 a.m., the petitioner and Umar Ilyas son of Umar Hayat Khan Pathan being good friends approached the complainant Muhammad Murad informed him that they wanted to proceed to Karachi for selling house situated in Shahbaz Colony, Larkana, complainant had shown his interest in the purchase of this house, for a sale consideration Rs,20,00,000 on 3-2-2007 an advance of Rs,10,000 was paid by the complainant and his brother, remaining amount was agreed to be paid by the complainant at the time of the registry of the Conveyance Deed as well as delivery of title documents of the house, on the next day Complainant and his witnesses went to the house, which was found locked, on inquiry it As revealed that the petitioner was a tenant left the house for Karachi. Complainant approached to the petitioner and his companions at Karachi, threats were extended to kill them, therefore, after seeking directions from Court of Additional District Judge, Larkana, first information report was preferred on 3-4-2007.
3. ' The petitioner filed Cr. Bail Application No,396/2007 for pre-arrest bail, which was allowed.
4. ' Mr. Muhammad Zafar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended strenuously that the petitioner is permanent resident of Karachi, he had no link with the landed property at Larkana, did not enter into an agreement as alleged for the sale of property situated in Larkana, therefore, serious prejudice shall be caused to him, if proceedings pending before the trial Court are not quashed.
5. ' The learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that the best course available to the petitioner was to approach to the Court in the first instance for redress under section 265-K, Cr.P.C.
6. Since alternative jurisdiction is available to the petitioner, therefore petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed.
7. ' We have considered arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
8. ' Undoubtedly High Court has very wide, inherent powers to do real substantial justice can be utilized to prevent abuse of process of Court but such powers cannot be exercised as to interrupt or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure. Inherent powers can be invoked, where it is established that the proceedings against a person seeking quashment of his case are based upon mala fides, coram non judice or a clear violation of the procedure or such proceedings amount to abuse of process of Court. This view find supports from the case of Syed Shoaib Ahmed Bukhari v.
9. The State (PLD 2001 Karachi 279). Relevant portion whereof is produced hereinbelow for ready reference:--- ' "The present petition has been titled as one under section 561-A, Cr. P. C . This provision gives powers to a High Court only, to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code of Criminal Procedure or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The power of this Court to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice is undoubtedly very wide and unlimited. But such power can certainly not be exercised as to interrupt or divest the ordinary course of Criminal Procedure. The inherent power of High Court can be involved where it is established that the proceedings against a person seeking quashment of his case are either mala fide, coram non judice or a clear violation of the procedure or such proceedings amount to abuse of process of Court. This Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction will not embark upon evaluating or assessing the evidence which is yet to come on record. The burden to prove plea of alibi lies upon the applicant and same is to be proved legally. Where the procedure requires recording of evidence, escape or deviation from such procedure by invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court would be unwarranted."
10. ' In the case of Muhammad Hanif Pathan v. The State (PLD 1999 Karachi 121) while dilating upon the inherent powers conferred on High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., the rule enunciated is as under:--- ' "object of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Whereby inherent powers were conferred on High Court was to deal and to do real and substantial justice and to prevent abuse of process of Court, it was not a condition precedent that trial Court must be moved in each and every case in the first instance. In absence of any evidence against the accused no useful purpose would be served by dragging him/accused in case before trial Court and accused was bound to be let off."
11. ' The challan submitted before the trial Court shows the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. The allegations of false implication cannot be entertained in the instant petition.
12. Determination of guilt or innocence of accused depends upon the totality of facts and circumstances revealed during trial as is held in case of Sheikh Mahmood Saeed and others v. Amir Nawaz Khan and another (1996 SCM R 839) and Muhammad Ali v. The State (1998 PCr.LJ 1323).
13. ' It would of course be proper the petitioner to approach the trial Court the first instance, therefore, petitioner not entitled to the relief claimed. The petition is dismissed in limine vide a short order, dated 8-2-2008, above are I reasons for the same.
14. ' The petitioner is directed to approach the trial Court for redress.