SAHIB KHAN, J.---Through the instants petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. petitioner invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court with the plea that, in a criminal case registered vide F.I.R. No, 342 of 2010 of Police Station City Gilgit, wherein, respondent No,4 was specifically charged, P.Ws. namely Aqeel son of Furqan and Ali Jan son of Mir Saeed in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. supported the allegation made against him in the F.I.R. According to the learned,counsel for the petitioner/complainant that respondent No,4 was in the custody of police when the investigation assigned to the present I.O., who illegally benefited the respondent No,4 under section 169 Cr.P.C. by . resealing him without taking into the consideration un-rebutted evidence against him on the record as well as violated the power vested with him under the above quoted provision of law.
2. The learned counsel appearing on the other side firstly, challenged the maintainability of petition in hand with the plea that the High Court is not competent to interfere the investigation process conducted by the investigating agency and secondly, they argued that the Investigating Officer can release the accused under his administrative authority as well as under section 169, Cr.P.C. and the Court of competent jurisdiction can only call the accused, if required during the trial. They referred 1991 M LD 2564 in support of their contention.
3. The objection raised by the learned counsel for respondent with regard to the jurisdiction and interference of High Court, invoking jurisdiction under provision provided as section 561-A, Cr.P.C. with affairs of investigating agency is concerned. It would be just and proper to attend this objection first. To understand the scope and applicability of section 561-A, the plain reading of section itself is explanatory rather embodied the answer of the objection raised by the learned counsel. I, therefore, feel it proper to reproduce the same here and reads:- 561 A:- Saving of inherent power of High Court: ' Nothing in this code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
4. In the presence of revisional jurisdiction under section 439, Cr.P.C. of the High Court, the legislature further provided a provision in the criminal procedure Code under section 561-A. Object of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is nothing except to confer jurisdiction and to bring the matters provided under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. for purpose of substantial justice and to prevent abuses of process of Court within the domain and power of the High Court. However, the inherent power so vested to achieve the targets mentioned in the provision are exercisable where it appears that proceedings are carried mala tide, coram non judice or in violation of the procedure and law at any stage, without defining the forum. The inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. in its terms and meanings are very wide, If taken otherwise the concept of law and Courts of Law is almost to achieve the target and goal given in this provision. The violation of law in the process of administration of criminal Justice System at any level even at the investigation stage by the I.O.
The High Court is fully empowered to exercise jurisdiction so vested for the purpose mentioned in section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
5. To consider the powers conferred to the Investigating Officer under section 169, Cr.P.C, it is also extremely required to reproduce the same here and reads:-- ' Section 169 of Cr.P.C:- ' Release of accused when evidence deficient.---If, upon an investigation under this chapter, it appears to the officer in-Charge of Police Station, or to the Police officer making the investigation that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable grounds of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, if such person is in custody, release him on his executing bond, with or without sureties, as such officer may direct to appear, if and when so required, before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report and to try the accused or (send) him for trial.
6. As it is evident that the power to release of an accused under custody on executing a bond with or without sureties is strictly stipulated with conditions that:--
(a) there may not be sufficient evidence or
(b) any reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the charges levelled against him/them for the purposes of submission of challan/report before the Court as against to referred supra provision of law section 170, Cr.P.C. Provides that:- 170.---Case to be sent to Magistrate when evidence is sufficient:
(1) If, upon an Investigation under this chapter, it appears to the officer in-charge of Police Station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable grounds as aforesaid, such officer shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence.
7. In the case in hand, respondent No,4 is directly charged in the F.I.R. by assigning a specific role.
The then Investigating Officer recorded the statements of two P.Ws. namely Aqeel and Ali Jan under section 161, Cr.P.C, they also charged the respondent No,4 and apparently corroborate the story given in the F.I.R. In the above stated factual position how and why, it can be presumed that there was insufficient evidence with the investigating agency or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of accused to Magistrate or submit a challan before the Court of law, release of the respondent No,4 by the Investigating Officer in a non-bailable case is nothing except to exceed his limits. The explanation of the I.O., regarding the creditability of witnesses belonging from complainant party, is again beyond the power of I.O. and is purely a subject within the domin of Court of law as the power of SHO/I.O. in this section is strictly limited upto that extent stated supra but not confer any power to go beyond the scope of provision of law.
8. In section 169, Cr.P.C, the word used as "reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate", limits the power of the Investigating Officer even the suspicion about the guilt of the accused should be based on reasonable grounds on the basis of any material on the record. In this case the Investigating Officer present in court could not identify any reason from the record to discard the evidence collected by the then I.O. further to believe that the respondent No,4 has charged with mala fide intention, except his general observation/opinion that "the people falsely involved the opponents in criminal cases, hence he released the accused under section 169, Cr.P.C." It is not enough and plausible explanation on behalf of the Investigating Officer, amounting to reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to Magistrate, hence cannot be taken into consideration in the presence of evidence on record. The Investigating Officer, thereby has violated the powers vested with him under section 169, Cr.P.C. and section 170, Cr.P.C., hence recalled the release order of respondent No,4, passed by the Investigating Officer. These are the reasons for my short order dated 11-4-2011, reads:- "Benefit of section 169, Cr.P.C. recalled and respondent No,2 (SHO/I.O. Police Station City) is directed to take respondent No,4/accused into custody and proceed to complete the investigation and submit the challan of case in the Court of law."
9. The copy of this order be sent to Inspector-General Police Gilgit Baltistan for guidance of the Police officers and compliance. File.