1. KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, J.---This criminal miscellaneous application has been filed by the applicant Muhammad Tariq Qazi son of Abdul Hameed, Zawar son of Ziaul-Haq, Rafaqat son of Sh.
2. Muhammad Hafizuddin, who has been challaned under the Copy Right Act by Preedy Police in case F.IR. No,652 of 2006.
3. ' Brief facts of the case are that "on 3-11-2006. Complainant Abdul Razzak Qureshi, who is the representative of Messrs Asia Motors Company had lodged F.I.R. At Preedy Police Station stating therein that his assignment is to check up market on behalf of his employer. He stated that his Company is producing filter in the brand name of 'Sakura'. He stated that the proprietor/owner of Al-Qamar Motors, Prince Center namely Muhammad Tariq Qzai is doing the business of selling the fake product in the name of his Company. Police had registered the case and had challaned three persons in the Court of III-Judicial Magistrate, Karachi South where they are facing trial in Criminal Case No,393 of 2006. The case has been registered under sections 56, 66, 66-A, B, E/67 and 70-A, Copyright Act, 1962. The applicant had moved an application under section 249-A Cr.P.C. In the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate on the sole ground that the police have no jurisdiction in this case and the F.I.A. Has exclusive jurisdiction in dealing the case. The learned Magistrate had rejected the application and in the concluding paragraphs had made following observation:- "1 have carefully pondered the arguments of learned Advocate for the applicant/accused in consonance with the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused persons. There is no denial to the fact that the offence on the basis of which present F.I.R. Was lodged is a scheduled offence. However, as regards to the competency of the F.I.R. In respect of scheduled offences, I am guided by the respected observations of his lordship Mr. Justice Saeed-ur-Rehman Farrukh in the case reported in 1999 PCr.LJ. 1584 Lah. Re" Mian Hamza Shehbaz Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan and others, which reproduced here as under:-- "Federal Investigation Agency could investigate only in those cases which were given in the schedule attached to the Act and same were alleged to have been committed either by a public servant as defined in section 21, P.P.C., or were allegedly committed in connection with the matters pertaining to Federal Government or by employees of the Corporation set up controlled and administered by the Federal Government." (Underlining is mine) In the light of above respected observation of the Honourable Apex Court, I have minutely examined the present case and it reveals that neither any employee of Federal Government nor of any Corporation created, controlled or administered by the Federal Government is involved. The alleged offences cannot be said to have been committed in connection with the matters concerning the Federal Government.
4. The allegations against private persons of allegedly imitating/copying the product of the complainant's company do not at all attract the jurisdiction and authority of Federal Investigation Authority. Therefore, I find no force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the accused persons that present F.I.R. Is itself registered without jurisdiction.
5. ' Before parting with this order any further, it would not be out of place to mention here that the case law reported in 1995 PCr.LJ. 90,1996 MLD 1874, PLD 1998 Kar. 226, PLD 1999 Lah. 109 and 2002 MLD 746 are distinguished from the facts and circumstances of present case.
6. ' So far as the other assertions of the learned counsel for the accused persons are concerned, I may say that the charge has already been framed and matter is at the stage of prosecution witnesses, therefore, at this stage, I find no substance in present application under discussion, same stands dismissed."
7. ' The applicants could riot succeed in the trial Court and as such they have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A Cr.P.C. This Court after hearing the Advocate for the applicant on 20-11-2007 had passed an order, issuing notice to the learned D.A.-G as well as A.G.
8. Sindh to appear in this Court and assist the Court on the point of scheduled offence as well as cognizance taken by the police and submission of challan. Mr. Ibad ul Husnain, Advocate for the applicant has stated that Copyright Ordinance was promulgated in 1962 and it was made enforceable by Notification dated 27-2-1967 vide Notification No,SRO-26(R)/67 published in Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary dated 21-2-1967 and the jurisdiction in copyright matter was given to F.I.A vide SRO No,321(1)/2005 dated 16-4-2005 published in PLD 2005, Federal Statutes Page 188. The learned counsel has contended that police has no jurisdiction to take cognizance in the matter and all proceedings initiated by the police are ,without jurisdiction and as such are nullity in law. He has relied upon case reported in Criminal Law Judgment.
111. Bashir Ahmed v. The State. It has been held in this case as under:-- "Consequently as per the well-settled principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court it has been the practice and procedure when it is demonstrated to the High Court when a complaint, investigation, report or other steps either in lodging of an F.I.R. Or prosecution of a criminal case is patently against the provision of law or otherwise no case can possibly be made out then this Court has been clothed with the jurisdiction to quash the same as no useful purpose would be served to keep the matter lingering on. This in fact amounts to an abuse of the process of a Court law. For this proposition reference can be made to Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmed and 3 others 2000 SCMR 122, Mian Munir Ahmed v. The State 1985 SCMR 257 and State through Advocate-General, N.- W.F.P. Peshawar and others v. Gulzar Muhammad and others 1998 SCMR 873. In the circumstances I would, therefore, convert this application into an application under section 561-A Cr.P.C. And quash the F.I.R. In question viz. Bearing Crime No,129 of 2000 of P.S. Kot Ghulam Muhammad. The police authorities are directed to adopt the proper procedure as provided under the 1991 Act.-- ' The application stands disposed of. Surety furnished by the applicant is hereby discharged."
9. ' In the above noted case the facts were that the police had registered the case under Anti- Corruption Act and Court was of the opinion that ordinary police cannot register the case under Anti-Corruption Act because there is another department under the name of Prevention of Corruption Establishment.
10. ' The second authority relied upon by the learned Advocate for the applicant is 2005 YLR 1685. In this case the Court has observed that Executive Magistrate and local police could not proceed in the matter of dealing in Foreign Exchange. In paras. 12 and 13 of the judgment it has been observed as under:-- "12. The only irresistible conclusion which can be drawn from the aforesaid state of affairs and discussion would be that Mr. Rizwan Nazir, Executive Magistrate, 1st Class was not competent to conduct the raid on the shop of Muhammad Ashraf who simply transgressed his authority without any legal justification and competence. As such the F.I.R. Got registered by him, which is required and desired to be quashed, cannot remain in the field. I would express that if on the basis of the aforesaid non-observance of the legal formality the prosecution is to be knocked out and the petitioner is to be acquitted after full-fledged trial it is his statutory right to get quashed the F.I.R.
11. Even at this initial stage.
13. I, therefore, accept this writ petition and quash F.I.R. No,565 registered on 23-10-1999 at Police Station City Daska, District Sialkot under sections 18/23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947."
12. ' The Court had quashed the F.I.R. Of Foreign Exchange Regulation registered by the police in writ jurisdiction.
13. ' Another case reported in 1999 Pakistan Criminal Law Journal, 1584, Mian Hamza Shehbaz Sharif v.
14. Federation of Pakistan and others. In this case the proceedings were quashed by the Court by observing in para No,15 of the judgment as under:-- "15. We are fully convinced that baseless cases were foisted upon the petitioner by an agency (F.I.A.) which otherwise too, had no legal authority to do so. These cases were registered 3 years ago, during which period considerable harassment, tension and ignominy was unduly suffered by the petitioners. Further prolongation of their agony would be clear denial of justice to them, besides waste of public time and money in the useless trials.
15. ' The powers of High Court to quash the criminal case in exercise of Article 199 of Constitution where its very initiation is without jurisdiction stands established in Haji Muhammad Yousufs case (supra).
16. Likewise High Court has ample authority to intervene under section 561-A Cr.P.C. As has been laid down authoritatively by their Lordship of Supreme Court In Asif All Zardari's case 1994 SCMR 798.
17. Following passage from the judgment is being reproduced with profound respect:- "Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Confers upon High Court inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect of any order under this code or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. These powers are very wide and can be exercised by the High Court at any times Ordinarily High Court does not quash proceedings under section 561-A Cr.P.C. Unless trial Court exercises its powers under section 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. Which are incidentally of the same nature and in a way akin to and co-related with quashment of proceedings as envisaged under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. In exceptional cases High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Without waiting for trial Court to pass orders under section 249-A or 265-K Cr.P.C. If the facts of the case so warrant to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.... (Underlining is ours)
18. ' This order was passed in writ jurisdiction and the Court in concluding paragraph has observed as under:-- "16. Drawing strength from the above two precedents, we accept both the petitions and in exercise of our power under Article 199 of the Constitution read section 561-A Cr.P.C. Quash the challan cases, under reference, against the petitioners and acquit them."
19. The learned Standing Counsel Ms. Sofia Saeed Shah has conceded to the legal position that the jurisdiction under Copy Right Act is vested with F.I.A. And as such cognizance taken by the police was illegal and beyond their jurisdiction. The learned counsel appearing for the Government of Sindh Mr. Muhammad Bux Awan also concedes to the legal position.
20. ' Without touching the merits of the case and without prejudice to the rights of the Complain of to invoke the proper jurisdiction I hereby hold that the cognizance taken by the Preedy Police was without jurisdiction and as such proceeding initiated by them without' jurisdiction stands quashed.
21. It is open for the accused/applicants to initiate civil proceedings for claiming damages against the police officers, who have illegally taken cognizance without jurisdiction and have caused harassm ent and expenses to the applicant.
22. ' Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,84 of 2007 is disposed.