' MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J.---The petitioner has filed this Constitutional Petition with the following prayer:-- "(a) That this honourable Court may be pleased to declare that the F.I.Rs, bearing (1) Crime No,270/2011 under sections 324, 353, 393, 394, 395, 436, 437, 148, 149, P.P.C. And 7 ATA, (2). Crime No,272/2011 under sections 13(d) Arms Ordinance, (3) Crime No,273/2011 under sections 395, 427, 148, 149, 437, P.P.C. And 7 ATA and (4) Crime No,274/2011 under sections 395, 427, 148, 149, 436, P.P.C.
And 7 ATA registered at Police Station, Pano Akil, are false, fabricated and based on false and concocted story and the same are liable to be quashed in accordance with law.
(b) That this honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondents Nos.2 to 5 not to arrest the accused persons nominated in the F.I.Rs, bearing (1) Crime No,270 of 2011 under sections 324, 353, 393, 394, 395, 436, 437, 148, 149 P.P.C. And 7 ATA, (2) Crime No,272/2011 under sections 13(d)
Arms Ordinance, (3) Crime No,273/2011 under sections 395, 427, 148, 149, 437, P.P.C. And 7 ATA and
(4) Crime No,274/2011 under section 395, 427, 148, 149, 436, P.P.C. And 7 ATA registered at Police Station, Pano Akil, till final disposal of the instant petition.
(c) To award the costs.
(d) To grant any other equitable relief, which this honourable Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner".
1. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the aforesaid F.I.Rs, have been illegally lodged with mala fide intention and the story set out therein is quite unbelievable. It was further contended that the petitioner and other accused persons, nominated in the F.I.Rs,, are respectable citizens and it is the duty of the State to protect the life, liberty and other privileges of the citizens and in order to cover up or protect illegalities of the police, they have got registered above F.I.Rs,, against the petitioner through their hired persons.
2. To a query asked by this court, whether, before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, the petitioner has approached and filed application in the trial Court under section 249-A or 265-K Cr.P.C, the learned counsel contended that no such application has been moved but the petitioner has directly approached this court for quashment of the aforesaid F.I.Rs, on the ground that same are false, fabricated and mala fide.
3. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, we have no hesitation in our mind to hold that a resort to provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution seeking quashment of the case is an extraordinary remedy which can be invoked only in extreme circumstances and said provisions can never be exploited as a substitute for the prescribed trial or to decide the question of guilt or innocence of an accused person. If prima facie an offence has been committed, ordinary course of trial before the court should not be allowed to be deflected by resorting to constitutional jurisdiction. Reference can be made to judgment authored by one of us (Muhammad Ali Mazhar J), reported in 2011 M LD 1155 (Rubina Kausar v. District Police Officer). At this juncture, we would further like to put forward another judgment reported in 2006 SCM R 1192 (Haji Sardar Khalid Saleem v.
Muhammad Ashraf) in which, the honourable Supreme Court has held that if prima facie offence has been committed, ordinary course of trial before the court should not be allowed to be deflected by resorting to constitutional jurisdiction. By accepting the constitution petition, the High Court erred in law to short circuit normally procedure in law as provided by law while exercising equitable jurisdiction which was not in consonance with the law laid down in the case of Habib Ahmed v. M.K.G. Scott Christian (PLD 1992 SC 353). In the case of Habib Ahmed (supra), it was held that if the offence had been committed justice required that it should be enquired into and tried. If the accused are not as a result of the trial found guilty they have a right to be declared "honourably acquitted by a competent court". On the other hand if the evidence against the accused discloses a prima facie case then "justice clearly requires that the trial should proceed according to law".
4. The inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is not an alternative jurisdiction or an additional jurisdiction but it is a jurisdiction preserved in the interest of justice to 'redress grievance for which no other procedure is available or has been provided by the Code itself. The power given by this section 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 High Court should be extremely reluctant to interfere in a case where a competent court has, after examining the evidence adduced before it, come to a view that a prima facie case is disclosed and has framed charges or summoned the accused to appear, unless it can be said that the charge on its face or the evidence, even if believed, does not disclose any offence.
5. None of the grounds raised in the memo of petition attracts or justifies at this point in time to hold that from the allegations raised in the F.I.R., no offence is made out. If quashment of criminal case is sought on the ground that charge is groundless or there is no probability of the accused being convicted of an offence which question cannot be decided without appraisal of evidence or the material placed on record or where question is whether facts, as alleged in the F.I.R. Constitute an offence or not, the petitioner should insist upon to first move an application under section 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. To the trial court before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court. However, if quashment of a criminal proceeding is sought on the ground that proceedings are ex facie without jurisdiction and continuation of the same will constitute an abuse of process of the court, this Court can entertain proceedings without first insisting upon the party to approach the trial Court.
6. The upshot of above discussion is that there is nothing available on record to show that the aforesaid F.I.Rs, are ex facie without jurisdiction and continuation of same will constitute abuse of process of law, therefore, this constitution petition is dismissed in limine. However, petitioner is at liberty to move proper application in the trial court in accordance with law.