1. IMAM BUX BALOCH, J.---Through this Constitutional Petition, the Petitioners seek quashment of F.I.R. No, 124 of 2010 of Police Station Ibrahim Hyderi of Bin Qasim Town, Karachi. The F.I.R. was registered under section 376(2) Protection of Women Act.
2. ' Precisely the facts of the prosecution case are that husband of Mst. Sumaira namely Muhammad Javed is serving as Driver in Moscow company. On 16-4-2010 her husband went to Sanghar for his personal work. Accidentally she became ill and she called her husband on phone who in reply informed her that he is sending one Shafaat and she may go with him for treatment. Accordingly, she went with Shafaat at Atiya Clinic Tariq Road, in the meanwhile one Irfan Bhai continuously called on her mobile phone and finally at about 1220 hours the complainant attended his call and informed him that she is at Crossing and arriving within 10/15 minutes. At about 1230 hours Shafaat left complainant in the street where she saw Irfan Bhai standing outside his house who informed her that Javed has come and available in his house. She went in the house of Irfan Bhai where she saw a man with pistol who forcibly took her in a room and two other persons also came, one of them took Irfan outside of the home. All the persons forcibly put off her cloths and six persons committed rape (Zina-bil-Jabr). After sometime they called Irfan and also put off his cloths and directed to sit with Irfan and obtained photographs of her and Irfan. After that all the persons directed Irfan to leave her in her house. At the same moment one Saddar who informed Irfan that Muhammad Channa, Azmat, Mazhar, Atif and two unknown persons on the force of weapons called Irfan and her and committed Rape upon her. She further stated that all the culprits have taken mobile phones of Irfan, Safdar and Allah Ditta, original CNICs, three Cameras and cash of Rs,25000.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the F.I.R. is false and no such incident has taken place. The petitioners are workers of one political party and due to mala fide intention, ulterior motives at the instance of Moscow Company where the husband of complainant is serving as Driver registered a false case. It is further contended that Muhammad Channa is a sick man and is under treatment. It is further contended that this is abuse of process of law if the proceedings of Crime No,124 of 2010 are 'continued. It is further contended that in the circumstances, extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court may be involved.
4. ' We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and have gone through the record available. Learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to produce any document whether the case is under investigation or the challan has been submitted in the competent Court of law. If prima facie the offence had been committed, justice requires that it should be enquired into and tried. If the accused are not as a result of trial found guilty they have a right to be declared as "honourably acquitted" by the competent Court. On the other hand if the evidence against the accused discloses a prima facie case then justice clearly requires that trial should proceed according to law. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court is not an alternative or additional jurisdiction.
5. ' It is only in the interest of, justice to redress grievances for which no other procedure is available.
6. The power given by section 561-A, Cr.P.C. can certainly, not be so utilized as to interrupt or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure as laid down in the procedural statute. The criminal cases were to proceed before the Court concerned in accordance with the normal law.
7. ' We are of the considered view that power vests in this Court to quash criminal proceedings if it is satisfied that a false complaint had been brought and the process of Court is therefore, being abused not to advance the cause of justice but to subject the accused persons to unnecessary harassm ent. In the case of Chaudhary Munir v. Mst. Surriya and others (PLD 2007 SC 189), the honourable Supreme Court held as under:-- "We are, however, of the considered view formed after having gone through almost the entire case law on the subject that the power as conferred upon the High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. are required to be exercised in exceptional cases where it is satisfied that continuation of proceedings complained of would amount to gross abuse of process of Court or that it is absolutely necessary to exercise inherent powers to secure the ends of justice. The powers as conferred upon High Court in section 561-A, Cr.P.C. being extraordinary in nature must be exercised sparingly with utmost care and caution and it should not be exercised in a casual and cursory manner because inherent jurisdiction as conferred upon the High Court pursuant to the provisions as enumerated in section 561-h, Cr.P.C. are 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 provisions should not be used to obstruct or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure."
8. ' In the case of Bashir Ahmad v. Zafar-ul-Islam (PLD 2004 SC 298), the honourable Supreme Court held as under:- "Such and others were the crucial questions which were required to be decided and determined before a final verdict of guilt or innocence of the accused persons of the present case could be pronounced. These questions were never attended to by the learned Judge in Chamber and understandably so because the same could not have been done unless the witnesses were examined and permitted to be cross-examined and unless the accused persons had also been examined under section 342 of the Cr.P.C. or under section 340(2) of the Cr.P.C. if the accused persons had elected to make statement on Oath. The Hon'ble Judge had proceeded to pronounce innocence of the accused persons on mere conjectures and surmises and that also the ones founded on incorrect facts. The prosecution had obviously been stifled and the matter had been decided without permitting the relevant facts to come on record in accordance with law. Needless to say that errors had crept into the proceedings because the normal course of trial had been unduly disrupted. Such is never the result designed to be achieved by the provisions of section 561- A, of the Cr.P.C.
9. ' Using the powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. to determine the fate of a criminal case is thus a serious departure from the normal course and needless to say that any deviation from the normal path is always pregnant with risk of being led astray. Such a deviation can, therefore, never be ordinarily advisable. Extraordinary circumstances must always be shown to exist before a choice could be made to abandon the regular course and instead to follow an exceptional route. Mere claim of innocence by an accused person could never be considered sufficient to justify such a departure because if this was so permitted then every accused person would opt to stifle the prosecution and to have his guilt or innocence determined under section 561-A of the Cr.P.C. The result would be decision of criminal trials in a summary and a cursory manner rendering the trials as a superfluous activity and the trial Courts as a surplus age. This never was and could never have been the intention of the law makes in adding section 561-A to the Code. Reference may be made to Sheikh Mahmood Saeed and others v. Amir Nawaz Khan and another (1996 SCM R 839), Malik Salman Khalid v. Shabbir Ahmad D&SJ Karachi and another (1993 SCMR 1973) and Mst. Sarwar Jan v. Ayub and Gulab (1995 SCM R 1679).
10. ' In the case of The State through Advocate General Sindh High Court of Karachi v. Raja Abdul.
11. Rehman (2005 SCM R 1544), the Honourable Supreme Court has held as under:- "In the aforecited cases, the principle laid down by this Court while dealing with the powers of the Courts under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. in quashing criminal proceedings pending before the trial Court is that when the law provides a detailed inquiry into offences for which an accused has been sent up for trial then ordinarily and normally the procedure prescribed by law for deciding the fate of a criminal case should be followed unless some extraordinary circumstances are shown to exist to abandon the regular course and follow the exceptional routes. Such exceptionable routes can also be one envisaged by section 249-A, Cr.P.C. It will not be out of place to mention here that during the course of evidence, prosecution has succeeded in producing evidence to the effect that the place from where the huge quantity of narcotics was recovered and seized belonged to company registered under Companies Ordinance, 1984 of which accused/respondent Raja Abdul Rehman was one of the Directors and that accused/respondent Abdul Rehman had frequently been seen or found visiting the place of recovery of narcotics. It is also in evidence that co- accused Muhammad Khan son of Raja and Muhammad Khan son of Ali Baz are the employees of accused Raja Abdul Rehman. Such evidence required an explanation from accused/respondent Raja Abdul Rehman without which it could not have been ignored or discarded from consideration."
12. The aforesaid view and principle is that if prima facie case is made out, the proper course is that the same be tried. The mere claim of innocence by an accused person could never be considered sufficient to justify such a departure because if this was so permitted then every accused person would opt to stifle the prosecution and to have his guilt or innocence determined under section 561-A of the Cr.P.C. The result would be decision of criminal trials in a summary and a cursory rendering the trials as a superfluous activity and the trial Courts as a surplus age. This never was and could never have been the intention of the law maker in adding section 561-A to the Code. We have observed that in each and every case the parties approach this court for quashing of criminal cases which are under trial with the courts of competent jurisdiction by invoking powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is becoming increasingly frequent. It is time to take stock of this tendency and to remind ourselves of the correct principles governing the subject so that the powers meant to prevent the abuse of law are not abused themselves. The extraordinary powers of this court can ordinarily be exercised only where no provision exists in the Code to cater for a situation or where the Code offers no remedy for the redress of a grievance. Inherent powers can be invoked to make a departure from the normal course prescribed by law only and only in exceptional cases of extraordinary nature and reasons must be offered to justify such a deviation.
13. ' For the foregoing reasons, we have come to the firm conclusion that no case for quashment is made out and hence we dismissed the instant Petition in limine vide our short Order dated 14th January 2011. These are the reasons for the same.