' RANA ZAHID MAHMOOD, J.--- This is an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Filed by the petitioner/accused of case F.I.R No,145 of 2007 dated 12-6-2007 registered with Police Station B- Division, Gujrat under section 295-C, P.P.C., wherein he and co-accused were alleged to have held an introductory ceremony in Tehsil Council Hall, Gujrat on 13-5-2007 regarding two objectionable books titled as "Zillat" and "Aik Molana Aik Kafir" which contained derogatory remarks in respect of Holy Prophet ( URDU TEXT) and other Prophets (peace be upon them) and Holy personages, while the petitioner had also delivered speech in support of the objectionable and derogatory books.
After due investigation which was done by S.P. Investigation, challan was submitted against the petitioner and others, while trial is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat and the petitioner filed an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Before him for his acquittal on the ground that despite lapse of 1-1/2 years after the registration of the case prosecution failed to produce any P. W, therefore, he was entitled to acquittal. It may also be mentioned that along with application under section 265-K Cr.P.C. The petitioner also filed an application under section 540-A, Cr.P.C. Before the learned trial Court for exemption from personal appearance, however both the applications were dismissed by the learned trial Judge vide single order dated 12-11-2008, whereafter the petitioner has filed this petition for quashment of said case registered against him and others.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been falsely involved who is a good Muslim, by all standards and has great reverence and respect for Holy Prophet (URDU TEXT) and submitted that since the petitioner cannot think of uttering any derogatory remarks against Holy Prophet (URDU TEXT), therefore, he cannot be disbelieved in the absence of any material contrary to said stance of the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted with reference to Muhammad Mahboob alias Booba v. The State PLD 2002 Lah. Page 587 that this Court in the case of Muhammad Mahboob alias Booba v. The State had held that in cases under sections 295-A, 295-B, 295-C, P.P.C., it was imperative that investigation of such a case should be conducted by at least two Gazetted Investigating Officers preferably those conversant with Islamic jurisprudence and in case they themselves were not conversant with Islamic law, a scholar of known reputation and integrity ought to have been added to the team and the team should then investigate as to whether an offence was committed or not and only after the conclusion by the team that offence was committed, police could further proceed in the matter. He submitted that a direction was given then to the Inspector General Police to ensure the compliance of said direction issued by this Court in said case. The learned counsel submitted that since said direction has not been complied by police in conducting investigation in this case, therefore, the criminal case pending trial against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, learned counsel also referred to the case of Qari Muhammad Younis v. The State reported as 2001 YLR page 484. Learned counsel also submitted that the jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Was very wide and when read in conjunction with sections 249-A, Cr.P.C. And 265-K, Cr.P.C. It was co-extensive and on the dismissal of the application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. By the learned trial Court filed by the petitioner, application can competently be made to this Court for quashment of the criminal case pending against the petitioner in the trial Court. Learned counsel submitted that at present the prosecution has already got examined 3 P.Ws and only 2 P.Ws are left in the field which include the Investigating Officer as well and despite the production of said P.Ws by the prosecution, the petitioner has a strong case for exercise of jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. And the framing of the charge or the recording of prosecution evidence does not come in the way of the petitioner to pray for quashment of the proceedings before the learned trial Court. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has made reference to the case of Muhammad Aslam (Ameer Aslam) and others v. District Police Officer, Rawalpindi and others reported as 2009 SCMR page 141. Also made reference to the case of the State through Advocate-General N.-W.F.P. And others v. Gulzar Muhammad and others reported as 1998 SCMR. Page 873, that jurisdiction under sections 249- A/265-K and 561-A. Cr.P.C. Is co-extensive. Further made a reference to 1996 PCr.LJ page 206 to contend that the inherent powers of the High Court could not be curtailed or limited in any manner by any jurisdictional requirement. Learned counsel referred to 1993 SCMR page 1873, 2000 YLR page 1273 and 2006 CLC page 1099 in support of his contentions.
3. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has vehemently opposed the contentions and submitted that there is no defect in the registration of the case against the petitioner and others and submitted that before the registration of the case, D.S.P. (Legal) was required to submit report on the allegations whether any offence was made out against the petitioner and others and on the opinion submitted by the D.S.P. (Legal) that offence under section 295-C, P.P.C. Was prima facie made out from the allegations levelled against the petitioner and others, instant case was registered, where after the investigation was entrusted to S.P. Investigation namely Mahmood-ul- Hassan and after him the investigation was conducted by Najeeb Akram Khan, S.P. Headquarter, therefore, there was no lacuna in conducting the investigation. Further submitted that when application of the petitioner under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Was dismissed by the learned trial Judge, the prosecution had not produced any P.W. Till then, however latest position is that 3 P.Ws. Have already been examined which are all material P.Ws. Including the complainant and only police officials are left in the field which also include the Investigating Officer and some formal P.Ws., therefore, submitted that trial is likely to conclude within short span of time, therefore, there is no case for quashment. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General submitted that none of the case law referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioner is applicable to the case in hand being distinguishable on facts and law. He submitted that simple saying by the petitioner that he is a good Muslim and has reverence and respect for Holy Prophet is not a question in issue as there are specific allegations against the petitioner and others that they uttered derogatory remarks against Holy Prophet (URDU TEXT) and other Prophets (Peace be upon them) and other Holy personages in the introductory ceremony held by the petitioner on the fateful day for two books such as "Zillat" and "Aik Molana Aik Kafir" which also contained derogatory remarks against the Holy personages including Hazrat Muhammad (URDU TEXT). He submitted that since the trial is in progress, quashment petition is not competent.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State and have perused the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge dated 12-11- 2008 and find that the main stress of the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner before the learned trial Court for his acquittal under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Was that despite lapse of 1-1/2 years after the registration of the case the prosecution had not produced any P.W. Against him and as such there was no probability of his conviction ultimately and as such, was liable to be acquitted. It may also be mentioned that another application filed by him for exemption from personal appearance was also dismissed by the learned trial Judge vide said impugned order.
Presently the position is that statements of three P.Ws. Have already been recorded while some P.Ws. Have been given up and only two or three P.Ws. Are left in the field to be examined including Investigating Officer and some formal witnesses who are police officers and the trial is likely to conclude within short span.
5. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the. Petitioner that petitioner is a good Muslim and has reverence and respect for Holy Prophet (URDU TEXT) by itself is no ground for allowing this petition as Muslim-hood of the petitioner is not a controversy in the criminal case, while the allegation against the petitioner is that he by holding an introductory ceremony in support of two books named "Zillat" and "Aik Molana Aik Kafir" which contained derogatory remarks against Holy Prophet (URDU TEXT) and other Holy personages, the petitioner delivered speech along with others/co-accused which contained derogatory remarks and thus was liable to be proceeded against through the registration of criminal case. It is important to mention about registration of instant case against the petitioner and others that a D.S.P. (Legal) who is Gazetted Police Officer had submitted a report to the police high-ups that from the perusal of the allegations against the petitioner and others, offence under section 295-C, P.P.C. Was made out, where after F.I.R. Was registered and then the investigation was conducted by S.P (Investigation) and S.P.
(Headquarter), Gujrat and challan was submitted, therefore, it cannot be said that the investigation in this case was not conducted in accordance with law. After the submission of challan against the petitioner and others as name of the petitioner was placed in Column No,3 of the challan, the trial Court took the cognizance of the offence, framed the charge and then proceeded with the trial, wherein statements of three material P.Ws. Have already been recorded and as such when prosecution has already produced star witnesses in support of the allegation against, the petitioner, this Court cannot in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction pre-empt the jurisdiction of the trial Court, neither can assume the role of trial Court by examining the depositions of the P.Ws. Whether they support the prosecution or not and then to proceed further with this petition in one way or the other. It may be mentioned that it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court in 2009 SCMR page 141 in the case of Muhammad Aslam and others v. District Police Officer, Rawalpindi and others that no invariable rule of law existed in this regard for the exercise of jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. And it depended on the facts of each case whether to allow the proceedings to continue or to nip the same in the bud, therefore, as the jurisdiction by this Court has to be exercised most sparingly as was held by the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Malik Salman Khalid v. Shabbir Ahmad, District and Sessions Judge, Karachi and another reported as 1993 SCMR page 1873, I am also of the view that said exercise has to be made sparingly and rarely in most appropriate cases in order to save a party from harassm ent and abuse of the process of the Court. Nonetheless jurisdiction of the High Court is very wide and indefinable but has to be exercised subject to limitations imposed by Law and it cannot bypass the express provisions of the Code. It is also pertinent to mention that since trial is likely to conclude in a short span of time as star prosecution witnesses have already been examined by the learned trial Court, therefore, it would be highly inappropriate, rather not permissible to usurp the jurisdiction of the trial Court simply on the analogy of inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality in the trial before the learned trial Court warranting exercise through inherent jurisdiction. Coming to the case-law, it may be mentioned that 2001 YLR page 484, 2000 YLR page 1273, 2006 CLC page 1099, 2009 SCMR page 141, 1998 SCMR page 873 and 1996 PCr.LJ page 2036 referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioner in no way are applicable to the case of the petitioner being distinguishable on facts and law as all said case-law related to rules laid down in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction except 1998 SCMR page 873 in which exercise under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
Was made as it was a case which was pending trial for the last about 15/16 years against the accused persons and was not being decided while criminal case was registered against the accused in said case in 1973, while 2006 CLC 1099 was a civil matter relating to inheritance of a deceased on an application for issuance of letter of administration by one of the widows of the deceased and the other had challenged the legitimacy of the widow on the ground that she was not Muslim and was married to a Christian. In the instant case, there is hardly any justification for quashing the proceedings before the learned trial Court by bypassing the normal procedure.
7(sic). The crux of the above discussion is, therefore, brings me to the conclusion that no case for quashment is made out. Petition is without merit and is, therefore, dismissed.