' MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J.---Petitioner Baloch Khan son of Haji Olia has invoked the inherent power of this Court under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Cr.P.C.) for quashment of F.I.R. No,18 of 2012 dated 4th May, 2012, under sections 420, 417 and 423 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (P.P.C.) registered at City Police Station, Chaman, District Killa Abdullah.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that aforesaid crime was lodged by respondent No,1 Haji Ahmed Shah with the allegation that he sold a piece of land measuring 50 acres to the petitioner/accused against the sale consideration of Rs,700,000 (Rupees seven lacs only) per acre and out of total amount i,e, Rs,3,50,00,000 (Rupees three crores and fifty lacs only), Rs,50,00,000 (Rupees fifty lacs only) was paid to the complainant. However, subsequently, he turned down the agreement and backed out from his promise and failed to pay the remaining amount, thus, the instant F.I.R. Was lodged.
3. Mr. Abdul Ghani Mashwani, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the very lqdging of F.I.R. Is outcome of mala fides and the same does not disclose any criminal liability and the proceedings initiated on the basis of said F.I.R. Ex facie is without jurisdiction and continuation of the same will constitute abuse of process of the Court, as contents of the F.I.R. Narrate just a civil liability and nothing else, as such, he prayed for quashment of F.I.R.
4. On the other hand, Syed Mumtaz Hussain Baqri, learned counsel for respondent No,1 as well as Mr. Muhammad Wasay Tareen, learned Prosecutor-General, contended that the F.I.R. Was rightly lodged against the petitioner, as he failed to make the payment of remaining amount. Their second submission was that, in any case, the petitioner should have pressed into service section 249-A, of the Cr.P.C. Before the trial Court.
5. To deal with the objection, namely, whether the petitioner should have approached the learned Judicial Magistrate under section 249-A, of the Cr.P.C. Instead of invoking section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
Before this Court. In this respect, it would be advantageous to reproduce hereinbelow both the two Sections, which speak as under:- "249-A. Power of Magistrate to acquit accused at any stage. Nothing in this Chapter shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from acquitting an accused at any stage of the case if after hearing the prosecutor and the accused and for reasons to be recorded, he considers that the charge is groundless or that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence." ."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."
6. A bare perusal of above quoted two sections indicates that both are couched in different languages and their scopes appear to be different. Section 249-A of the Cr.P.C. Empowers a Magistrate to acquit an accused at any stage of the case for the reasons to be recorded, he considers that the charge is groundless or that there is no possibility of the accused being convicted of any offences, whereas section 561-A of the Cr.P.C. Lays down that nothing in the 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.
7. It is true that the powers of the trial Court under section 249-A of the Cr.P.C. And 265-K of the Cr.P.C. Are co-extensive with the similar powers of the High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
And it would, of course, be proper to approach the trial Court, in the first instance, but it is equally true that there is nothing to bar the High Court from entertaining, in appropriate cases, an application under section 561-A, of the Cr.P.C. Directly in order to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
8. Reverting to the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and an attempt has been made to convert the same in criminal proceedings with B ulterior motives. The narration, made in the F.I.R., does not constitute any offence.
9. It may be observed that the petitioner has not sought the quashment of criminal proceedings on the ground that the charge is groundless or there is no probability of the petitioner being convicted of an offence, which is a question that certainly cannot be decided without appraisal of the evidence or the material placed on record, but , in the instant case, the quashment of criminal proceedings is sought on the ground that the proceedings are ex facie without jurisdiction and continuation of the same will constitute abuse of the process of the court. Thus, the petition is competent and the prime contention of learned counsel for the respondents is devoid of any force. In the present case, since, admittedly, SHO, City Police Station, Chaman had no jurisdiction in the matter to lodge the report. The entire exercise was coram non judice and, therefore, F.I.R. No,18 of 2012 lodged by SHO, City Police Station, Chaman, District Killa Abdullah on the complaint of Haji Ahmed Shah, is hereby quashed and the instant petition is allowed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.