1. ' MAQBOOL AHMED AWAN, J.--- Applicants namely Muhammad Gufran, (2) Muhammad Hassan, (3)
2. Muhammad Rizwan, (4) Muhammad Nauman, (5) Muhammad Farhan, (6) Muhammad Imran and Muhammad Adnan, have filed the present application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For quashment of the proceedings/F.I.R. No,97 of 2009 of Police Station New Karachi for the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. And made the following prayer:--- "That this Honourable Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings of F.I.R. No,97 of 2009 pending before the IIIrd Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Central Karachi, release/ discharge the applicants from the same, in the interest of justice."
3. ' Briefly the case of F.I.R. No,97 of 2009 are that the complainant is running the business of selling shoes with name and style of "China Boot House" whereas the applicants who purchased the shoes from the complainant, issued in all 6 cheques amounting to Rs,82 lacs, in favour of the complainant which, on presentation to the banks were dishonoured. On representation to the banks the complainant could not encash the amount of the cheques fraudulently issued by the applicants. Theieafter, the complainant approached the applicants who kept him on false hopes and ultimately when the applicants failed to make the payment, complainant approached the police, and on their refusal, he filed an application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. On 13-1- 2009 and the learned District and Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Karachi South, allowed the prayer of the complainant on 21-1-2009. Thereafter the complainant lodged the F.I.R.
4. For the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. Against the applicants.
5. ' The police took up the investigation, and the applicants finding their imminent apprehension of arrest, applied for bail and the same was allowed.
6. ' The learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the police in gross violation, and disobedience of the injunction orders passed by this Court in Suit No,380 of 2009, in respect of the cheques, registered the F.I.R. Against all the applicants though the cheques were issued by the applicant No,2. But the complainant with ulterior, motives and male fide intention involved all the brothers in the F.I.R. The counsel also argued that during pendency of the suit, the complainant lodged the F.I.R., to humiliate and harass the applicant, he therefore, prays, for quashment of the F.I.R.
7. ' Conversely, the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the applicants have committed the offence while issuing the cheques, which were subsequently bounced by the banks, the applicants are jointly running business of shoes and they purchased the same from the complainant, the complainant thereafter, approached the applicants for the payment, who kept him on false hopes and failed to make the payment, the complainant approached the learned District and Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio, Karachi South, and filed an application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. On 13-1-2009 and upon hearing, the application of the complainant was allowed and on 24-1-2009, the complainant lodged the F.I.R. The documents annexed with the application reveal that the complainant also lodged F.I.R. No,17 of 2009 against the applicants for offences under sections 406, 420, 489-F, 506/34, P.P.C., the counsel submits that the applicant Muhammad Gufran in order to harass the complainant lodged the F.I.R. No,50 of 2009 on 27-1-2009 against the complainant and his brothers Muhammad Tayab Siddique and Abdullah Siddique. Since the F.I.R. Is under investigation, the application filed by the applicants is not maintainable under the law and is liable to be dismissed.
8. ' Mrs. Akhtar Rehana, the learned Additional Prosecutor-General, supported the arguments of learned Advocate for the complainant. So also Mr. Haji Abdul Majeed, the counsel for the State.
9. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and minutely gone through the material available on the file.
10. ' From the perusal of record, it appears that the applicants had purchased the shoes from the complainant and had issued the cheques in his favour, which were subsequently, bounced by the banks. It is further clear that when the applicants failed to make the payment, the complainant approached the learned District and Sessions Judge/ExOfficio, Karachi South, and filed an application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. And after getting orders lodged the F.I.R. Against the applicants. The matter is under investigation. It is an admitted fact that the applicants have filed the civil suit. Under the similar circumstances the Honourable apex Court, while deciding the identical question in the case of Seema Fareed v. The State reported in 2008 SCM R 839, it has been observed:--- "It is well-settled that, a criminal case must be allowed to proceed on its own merits and merely because civil proceedings relating to same transaction have been instituted it has never been considered to be a legal bar to the maintainability of criminal proceedings which can proceed concurrently because conviction for a criminal offence is altogether a different matter from the civil liability."
11. ' In another case of Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others reported in 2006 SCM R 276, it has been held that:--- "It is also a settled proposition of law that if prima facie an offence has been committed, ordinary course of trial before the Court should not be allowed to be deflected by resorting to constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. By accepting the constitutional petition the High Court erred in law to short circuit the normal procedure of law as provided under Cr.P.C. And Police Rules while exercising equitable jurisdiction which is not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in A. Habib Ahmad v. M.K.G. Scott Christian PLD 1992 SC 353. The learned High Court had quashed the F.I.R. In such a manner as if the respondent had filed an appeal before the High Court against order passed by trial Court. The learned High Court had no jurisdiction to quash the impugned F.I.R. By appreciation of the documents produced by the parties without providing chance to cross- examine or confronting the documents in question. Respondents had alternative remedy to raise objection at the time of framing the charge against them by the trial Court or at the time of final disposal of the trial after recording the evidence. Even otherwise, respondents have more than one alternative remedies before the trial Court under the Cr.P.C. i.e. Sections 265-K, 249-A or to approach the concerned Magistrate for cancellation of the case under provisions of Cr.P.C. The respondents have following alternative remedies under Cr.P.C.:---
(a) To appear before the Investigating Officer to prove their innocence.
(b) To approach the competent higher authorities of the Investigating Officer having powers vide section 551 of Cr.P.C.
(c) After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has to submit case to the concerned Magistrate and the 'Magistrate concerned has power to discharge them under section 63 of the Cr.P.C. In case of their innocence.
(d) In case he finds the respondents innocent, he would refuse to take cognizance of the matter.
(e) Rule 24.7 of the Police Rules of the 1934 makes a provision for cancellation of cases during the course of investigation under the orders of the concerned Magistrate.
(f) There are then remedies which are available to accused persons who claim to be innocent and who can seek relief without going through the entire length of the investigations.
12. ' I find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that this Court is competent to quash the F.I.R. On this point it will be advantageous to cite Kh. Fazal Karim's case reported in PLD 1976 SC 461, wherein the Honourable apex Court 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 that the provision should not be used to abstruct or divert the ordinary course of Criminal Procedure.
13. Reference may be made in the regard to this Court's judgment in Ghulam Muhammad v.
14. Muzammal Khan and 4 others reported in PLD 1967 SC 317. The same view was reiterated by this Court in Shahnaz Begum v. Honourable Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan and another reported in PLD 1971 SC 677. It was observed in the case of Ghulam Muhammad v.
15. Muzammal Khan. This Court had occasion to point out that the power given by section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Can certainly not be utilized as to interpret or divert the ordinary course of Criminal Procedure , as laid down in Procedural Statute."
16. As the facts have been narrated above which shall make it clear that in the wake of business transaction with the complainant, the applicants carrying on the same type of business, delivered in all six cheques amounting to Rs,82 lacs which were bounced by the banks on presentations. As such the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. Obviously seems to have been made out: The pendency of civil suit will not bar the proceedings in the Criminal Courts.
17. ' For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the present criminal miscellaneous application, which is accordingly dismissed.