' M. BILAL KHAN, J.---By filing this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Zafar Gulzar son of Gulzar Khan, the petitioner, has made the following prayer: --
(i) Appropriate orders may be made to prevent the process of Criminal Courts from being utilized to support an extortion campaign.
(ii) F.I.Rs, attached above be quashed as a tactic employed in a extortion campaign.
(iii) Adjudication be made that no Criminal Case can be initiated by use of any cheque in relation to which a Report of theft has already been made.
(iv) Appropriate disciplinary action be directed to be initiated against respondent Mazhar for abuse of governmental authority and his status as S.S.P., Special Branch.
(v) The conduct of respondent Advocate be reported to the Bar Council for taking appropriate disciplinary proceedings against him.
(vi) Meanwhile, effect of any F.I.R., registered on the basis of any cheque in relation to which a theft stoppage reported has been made be suspended, subject to the final decision herein.
(vii) Any other order deem suited to prevent the abuse of the process of the Courts may also be made.
2. Dr. A. Basit, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the signatures and thumb- impressions on agreement of partnership, dated 1-1-2007, which has been appended with this petition as Annex 'I', had been procured by coercing and intimidating the petitioner and by using strong-arm tactics by Col. (Retd.) Syed Mazhar-ul-Hassan, Senior Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, Lahore (respondent No,1); that in fact the petitioner had been forced into paying an amount of Rs,4,50,000 per month as bribe to said respondent No,1 and Matloob Ahmad Warraich (respondent No,3) by adopting a novel conception of getting the agreement of partnership executed; that the petitioner has so far been made to part with a sum of Rs,72,00,000 as bribe at the rate of Rs,4,50,000 per month ever since the execution of the said agreement on 1-1-2007; that respondent No,3 and Ch. Zubair Ahmad Farooqi, Advocate (respondent No,2) had stolen eleven leaves from the cheque book of the petitioner, whereafter they resorted to getting criminal cases registered against him one after the other under section 489-F, P.P.C.
3. I have heard Dr. A. Basit, the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length. It is not denied that no suit for cancellation of the agreement, dated 1-1-2007 has so far been filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner miserably failed to satisfy this Court as to why the petitioner remained silent for sixteen long months and did not raise any objection against the said agreement. The learned counsel admits that after registration of cases against the petitioner under section 489-F, P.P.C. i.e, F.I.R. No, 241 of 2008 with Police Station Satto Katla, Lahore on 26-2- 2008; F.I.R. No, 183 of 2008; with Police Station Sabza Zar on 12-3-2008; F.I.R. No, 155 of 2008, with Police Station Garden Town, Lahore on 29-3-2008, the petitioner has neither sought bail from any Court of Law nor has he joined investigation.
4. Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is attracted only where (a) it is sought to give effect to any order made under the Code of Criminal Procedure, (b) to prevent the abuse/misuse of the process of the Court and (c) to meet the ends of justice. The language of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Does not admit of any ambiguity and that is why the superior Courts have time and again held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is not an additional or alternative jurisdiction and where alternate remedy is available, a petition under said section cannot be maintained. Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is resorted to where the Code does not provide for a particular situation or the abuse of process of any Court (criminal) is so gross or apparent that the judicial conscience of the Court cannot stay oblivious to it or that the ends of justice demand an action not catered for by the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. The prayers made in the petition and pressed at the bar make it clear that the petitioner has not sought any relief available to him from any Court so far. There is no order made which he seeks to be given effect to. There is no question of meeting the ends of justice as he has not approached any forum in the different administrative and judicial hierarchy under the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court is being asked to do something without there being any basis to attract any of the jurisdictional prerequisites of section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
6. By the petitioner's own showing, the process of the Court has not even begun and, therefore, the question of use or abuse of the same does not arise. This application is absolutely frivolous, misconceived and exhibits petitioner's meagre acquaintance with law.
7. Resultantly, this petition fails and is dismissed in limine.