Through the instant petition filed under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., the petitioners, namely, Allah Bakhah and Muhammad Tahseen seek the quashment of FIR No, 513 dated 24-8-2011 registered against them under Sections 406/419/420/427/467/468 and 471/34, PPC at Police Station Cantt: D.I.Khan.
2. Brief but relevant facts of the case are that on 11-8-2011, the complainant, namely, Yaqoob Khan son of Toti Khan, had submitted an application to the District Police Officer Dera Ismail Khan, wherein the petitioner Allah Bakhsh alongwith his three sons were charged for commission of fraud and forgery, whereby the respondent was deprived from a huge amount of Rs, 26,00,000/. The DPO marked the application to the SHO concerned for necessary action and consequently the FIR ibid was registered against the petitioners. On getting knowledge about the said FIR, the petitioners in the first instance approached the Court of Sessions Judge and succeeded to get ad-interim pre- arrest bail vide order dated 26/8/2011 and soon thereafter they filed the instant petition on the grounds that the co-accused Ashiq Salim, a notorious person, has gone into hiding, whose where about is not known. He is required to local police in various cases of fraud and forgery etc; and now has been declared proclaimed offender. The petitioners having no nexus with him have been dragged by the complainant in the instant case FIR for ulterior motives.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vividly argued that the registration of impugned FIR No, 513 is based on mala fide, against the admitted realities and is aimed only to harass, blackmail and pressurize them for ulterior motive. He argued that prior to registration of the FIR ibid, Respondent No, 2 and brother Ahmad Khan Kamrani have already registered another FIR against the said Aashiq Salim under Section 489-F, PPC but at that time no allegations of the present nature were leveled, therefore, it is a cooked up case registered after deliberation and consultation. He contended that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 5/5/2005 but till the filing of the present petition, the respondents have remained mum and there is no reasonable explanation for such long delay of about six years. He urged that the petitioners reside within the limits of Police Station city D.I.Khan, while the alleged T.T. was encashed in Islamabad, thus the registration of FIR ibid at Police Station Cantt: D.I.Khan was unjustified. The last limb of his arguments was that neither the alleged transaction took place nor there were any business relations of the petitioners with Respondent No,
2. The complainant failed to produce any independent and impartial witness in this regard has been produced to substantiate the allegations against the petitioners, thus the FIR is liable to be quashed.
4. In rebuttal, the learned Additional Advocate General representing the State assisted by the learned counsel for Respondents No, 2 and 3 opposed the petition on variety of grounds.
5. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record reveals that the complainant has charged the petitioner alongwith others for commission of a cognizable offence. In case the contents of the instant petition and that of the FIR are put in juxtaposition to each other, it brings the case of the parties within the area of disputed questions of facts and law which cannot be resolved by this Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., which requires proper probe, investigation and evidence of the parties, which is .absolutely the job of the trial Court. By now it is a settled law that if, prima, facie, an offence has been committed, the ordinary course of trial before the competent Court cannot be allowed to be deflected by resorting to the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
6. I have decided to refrain from making any observation about the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice case of either party during the trial. Suffice it say at this juncture that the grounds urged here hardly furnish any justification for quashment of the FIR in question.
7. Admittedly, the petitioners are charged in the FIR ibid for commission of .a cognizable offence and they have succeeded in getting ad-interim pre-arrest bail from the Court of learned Additional Sessions JudgeI D.I.Khan vide order dated 26.8-2011 Instead of joining the investigation, they have filed the instant petition wider Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. in haste'. Needless to mention here that the said section of law has been inserted in the Code of, Criminal Procedure for the purpose to recognize and reiterate the inherent powers of the High Courts for passing such an order as would. enable it to do justice. The basic object of Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is to fill-up a lacunae existing in the said Code for the matters for which no specific provision or remedy has been provided. Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. undoubtedly could not be frequently applied for determining the guilt 'or innocence 'of an accused at a premature stage. Stifling and throttling of criminal proceedings has been disapproved by the apex Court through various pronouncements, as it is against the scheme provided by the criminal procedure code. In this respect, reliance may be placed on the case titled Sher Afgan Khan Niazi Vs. Ali Habib and others (2011 SCM R 1813). The application of the section ibid should not lightly be made as the same would tend to circumvent the due process of law. The principles for invoking the inherent provisions of Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. have been enunciated in detail by the Honourable apex Court in the case of bashir Ahmad Vs. Zafer-ul-Islam reported as'
PLD 2004 Supreme Court-298 which are of binding nature,
8. In view of the law laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan referred above, I am of the considered view that the extra ordinary powers of this Court under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. are only to be invoked in exceptional cases were the Court finds that the continuation of process shall amount abuse of the process of the Court.
9. In wake of the above discussion and deriving wisdom from the case law cited above, I find no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.