' MUHAMMAD YAWAR ALI, J.---Through this petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner seeks quashing of case F.I.R. No,329 of 2010 dated 14-03-2010 for offence under Section 406, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station North Cantt. Lahore.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that bare reading of the F.I.R. Would show that no case under Section 406, P.P.C. Is made out, the cheques in question were not entrusted to the petitioner with regard to amount outstanding as mentioned in the F.I.R., that civil litigation is pending between the parties and the petitioner has filed a suit for recovery before lodging of F.I.R.
Under Order XXXVII, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Which was decreed by the learned Additional District Judge Lahore on 5-4-2010. Lastly, it is submitted that F.I.R. Was lodged to pre-empt the petitioner from pursuing his legal remedy.
3. Learned Law Officer and learned counsel for the complainant/ respondent No,3 have opposed the petition and submit that Challan has been submitted before the Magistrate Section-30 Cantt.
Lahore, on 31-32010. They further submit that once Challan has been submitted in a court of a competent jurisdiction, then only remedy available to the petitioner is to file an application. Under- section 249-A, Cr.P.C. For acquittal.
4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
5. This petition raises disputed question of facts which cannot be gone into by this Court while exercising its extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction as has been held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled "Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others" 2006 SCM R 276.
6. It is trite that quashing of proceedings is not to be allowed for the reason that ordinary course of trial before the Court should not be allowed to be deflected through an approach to an inherent jurisdiction of High Court, as has been held by the Apex Court in case "Dr. Ghulam Mustafa v. The State and others" 2008 SCM R 76. Prima facie if an offence has been committed, it should be inquired into and tried. If the accused is innocent he has a right to be honourably acquitted by the Trial Court. Inherent jurisdiction of High Court is not an alternative jurisdiction or additional jurisdiction as has been held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled "A. Habib Ahmed v. M.K.G Scott Christian and 5 others" PLD 1992 Supreme Court 353. In any case an accused has more than one alternative remedies before the trial Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure that is under section 265-K and under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Since an alternative remedy is there a petition seeking quashing of F.I.R. Would not be competent. Quashing of proceedings in this case would amount to short-circuiting the normal procedure of law while exercising equitable jurisdiction which would not be in consonance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in case titled "Haji Sardar Khalid Saleem v. Muhammad Ashraf and others" 2006 SCM R 1192. The petitioner has a remedy of moving the trial Court for redress of his grievance.
7. Upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in the petition and it is dismissed.