' ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.--- Through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the quashment of F.I.R.
No,208 dated 17-5-2009 registered under section 365-B, Cr.P.C. At Police Station Lakki mainly on the grounds that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. And the alleged abductee named Shazia Iqbal being sui juris and virgin in her statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. Has stated that she had validly contracted Nikah with the petitioner and thus performing marital obligations of her own free-will.
2. I have considered the arguments advanced at the bar in the light of available record of the case.
3. Be that as it may the alleged abductee had left the house of her parents of her own consent, but it is yet to be seen at trial when complete evidence comes on record that whether there was no other Nikahnama in the field at the time of occurrence including the other Islamic requirements.
4. A person may approach this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. When other remedy is not available. In this case, F.I.R. Has been registered and the investigation is also complete as per version of learned counsel for the petitioner at the Bar. The grounds agitated by the learned counsel are such which can be considered by the trial Court during or before trial.
5. The Apex Court in the case titled Khawaja Fazal Karim v. The State and another PLD 1976 SC 461 has held as under:- "It is well-settled that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is neither alternative nor additional in its character and is to be rarely invoked only in the interest of Justice so as to seek redress of grievances for which no other procedure is available and the provisions should not be used to obstruct or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure.
Reference may be made in this regard to this Court's jurisdiction in Ghulam Muhammad v.
Muzzamel Khan and others PLD 1967 SC 317. The same view reiterated by this Court in Shahnaz Begum v. Honourable Judges of Sindh Balochistan and others. It was observed in the case of Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammel Khan and 4 others, "this Court had occasion to point out that power given under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Can certainly not to be utilized as to interrupt or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure as laid down in the procedural statute".
6. In view of the above principles and facts of the case, if the plea of the petitioner is considered, it could open a Pandora box. Every accused against whom F.I.R. Is registered would take shelter of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. And role of the trial Court would become redundant and consequently this Court would replace the trial Court. The petitioner has opportunity during trial to file an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. For acquittal if evidence against him is not available. Allegations are there against him and he must face it and defend it before relevant forum.
7. In view of the above I find no substance in this quashment petition which is hereby dismissed in limine.