' SYED HUSSAIN MAZHAR KALEEM, J.---An application to quash proceedings undertaken by District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Mirpur was filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. By the accused petitioners in a case titled State v. Rukhsar Ahmad and others.
2. Brief facts forming background of the application are that the accused applicants are facing trial under sections 5/15; I.P.L. And sections 307/109, A.P.C. Before District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Mirpur. On 14-5-2005 the case was made over to Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Dadyal Camp Mirpur for disposal under law. On the next date the said Court cancelled the order and started proceedings in the case.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Mirpur made over the case to Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Dadyal Camp Mirpur for disposal on 14-5-2005 but on 2-6-2005 the order was cancelled by the same Court. According to the learned counsel the Court was not competent to make over the case as the territorial jurisdiction of both the Courts was determined through a Government Notification while the order, dated 2-6-2005 was also illegal because the Court was not competent to cancel its own order. He pointed out that the order, dated 2-6-2005 was not signed by any of the members of District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Mirpur; therefore, it had no legal validity. In view of the fact that the orders, dated 14-5-2005 and 2-6-2005 passed by District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Mirpur were against law, the Court was not competent to proceed with the case, therefore, all proceedings conducted by the trial Court after 14-5-2006 being illegal may be quashed.
4. On the other hand, it was argued that the order, dated 14-5-2005 was cancelled on 2-6-2005 and District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Mirpur proceeded with the case. Non of the orders was challenged by the applicants and later on the application was filed before this Court to prolong the matter which has caused delay in conclusion of the trial. The learned counsel emphasized that order passed on 2-6-2005 by the Court below was in accordance with law. Mere fact that it was not signed by the members of the Court is not sufficient to quash the proceedings; therefore, the application may be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. The District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Mirpur through an order passed on 14-5-2005 made over the case to Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Dadyal however, through a subsequent order recorded on 2-6-2005 without any proceedings before the Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction cancelled the same and proceeded with the trial without any objection by any of the parties.
7. The learned counsel's contention is that after passing the order the same could not be cancelled and the order was also illegal for being unsigned.
8. So far as the question with regard to making over the case to Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Mirpur by the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Mirpur is concerned, it is correct that territorial jurisdiction of both the Courts is determined through a Government Notification as such the case could, not be made over to Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Dadyal.
Realizing this legal aspect District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Mirpur B through a subsequent order cancelled the earlier order passed and proceeded.With the trial without any objection by any of the parties. At this stage none of the parties called in question the legality of aforesaid orders through revision but later on the accused petitioners challenged the proceedings through an extraordinary provision which could only be brought into play if no other provision dealing with the situation is provided in the Code. It would be necessary to mention that the provisions of 561-A, Cr.P.C. Are extraordinary in nature and for exercise of same three tests are laid down:- Firstly, to give effect to any order passed under Cr.P.C., secondly, to prevent the abuse of process of Court and, thirdly, pass any order securing justice.
9. Inherent powers of Shariat Court are meant for doing substantial justice in a case of unforeseen eventualities for which no provision is available in Cr.P.C. And those powers are to be used with care and caution and not to interrupt, impede or stifle any proceedings or any other course which is regulated and controlled by other provisions of Code. The main aim and object of the said provisions of law is to save the people from the agony of the abuse of the process of the Court and from the fake and mock trials. The law is fairly well- settled that before exercising these powers the Shariat Court should come to a conclusion that allowing the impugned trial and proceedings to continue would defeat the ends of justice or either operate or perpetuate an injustice. It would be an abuse of the process of law and prevision of the administration of justice. Normally every case should be allowed to proceed according to law and resort to these provisions should not- be lightly made as the same would tend to circumvent the due process of law. Criterion for the exercise of the powers is that the injustice complained of must be clear, grave in nature and tangible and there is no other remedy available.
10. In the present case no illegality is noticed or any injustice done to the party invoking the inherent jurisdiction. There was an express provision provided in the shape of revision which was not availed of as such there was no legal justification for exercise of extraordinary provisions of law. It may be mentioned here that the case against the accused applicants was registered on 13-1-1992 and only 8 out of 25 prosecution witness have been examined as yet. A perusal of interlocutory orders show that the delay in recording the prosecution evidence was caused by the accused applicants and the application also appears to have been filed only to delay and prolong the proceedings. It is not the happy state of affairs, particularly when the accused petitioners are on bail, therefore, it would be in fairness of things that an order to expedite proceedings may also be passed.
11. In view of the aforesaid, the application is dismissed and the trial Court is directed to take the case on priority basis and decide it within three weeks from the date of this order. The parties shall appear before the trial Court on 16-7-2007.