' ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, J.---Petitioners-accused through instant application by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Seeks quashment of F.I.R. No, 742 dated 9- 9-2011, registered under sections 337-F(iv)/452/148/149, P.P.C., at Police Station City Bannu and the consequential proceeding in consequence thereof, alleging the same to be false, frivolous and being based on a cook and bull story just to counterblast F.I.R No,705 registered on the report of Waqar Ahmad (one of the present petitioners) against complainant party of the F.I.R in question.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners-accused was heard at length and record appended with the petition perused.
3. The F.I.R. In question has been registered on the report of one Attiq Ali against the petitioners. As per contents thereof, on the night of incident complainant along with his son Ahmad Ali, after offering Isha prayer in the village Mosque, no sooner entered their house, they saw petitioners/accused duly armed with firearms thrashing his wife Mst. Naseem Begum .With fists, kicks and Butts of their rifles, as a result, she sustained injuries. It is further alleged that the accused-petitioners also criminally intimidated the complainant and his son in the house.
4. There is another F.I.R. No,705, of the even date, registered on the report of Waqar Ahmad petitioner against complainant party of the F.I.R. In question, wherein the Police Station, date and place of occurrence are the same with a slight difference of time of the incident. Complainant of F.I.R. No,705 alleged that on the night of occurrence, on their arrival at the house of the accused, his sister who is married to Atif Ali (son of complainant of F.I.R. In question), was being thrashed by her husband Atif Ali and on intervention to rescue her, Zulfiqar Ali, Waqar Ali, Fawad Ali, Ahmad Ali and Jawad Ali son of Attiq Ali attacked and thrashed him and his father with fists, kicks and butts of the pistol, as a consequence, he sustained injury on his head.
5. In view of the allegations levelled in both the F.I.Rs, there are two-versions qua the same incident.
One person, from each party, has allegedly sustained injuries. Which of the two versions is correct?
Is a question which requires determination in light of the evidence during trial. Similarly, the question as to who was the aggressor and who was aggressed upon cannot be answered in absence of evidence. In this backdrop of the events, when an offence has been found committed, then ordinary course of trial is not to be deflected by resorting to. Quashment. The inherent powers of the High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., can only be invoked in extraordinary cases, where no offence is made out, even if the allegations made in the F.I.R., are proved at the trial or when there is a case of no evidence, at all, or where there is a violation of any law or where any illegality has been pointed out, causing 'grave miscarriage of justice. In the instant case, not a single circumstance has been pointed out, which may, warrant interference of this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.
6. To seek interference under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., three conditions are essential to be fulfilled that the justice which came to light, should not be of a trivial character; that the injustice which was noted was of a clear and palpable character and not of a doubtful character and that there existed no other provisions of law by which the party aggrieved could have sought relief. The power under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is extraordinary in its nature which could be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only where such exercise is justified by the tests specially laid down in the section itself, as its application in frequent and light manner would tend to circumvent the due process of Jaw. The principles for invoking the inherent provision of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Have been enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled, "Bashir Ahmad v. Zafrul Islam" (PLD 2004 SC 298), which are binding in nature. Such power ought not to be exercised capriciously or arbitrarily but should be exercised (ex debito justitiae) to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone Courts exist. The jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is neither alternative nor additional in its nature and is to be rarely invoked only to secure the ends of justice so as to seek redress of grievance for which no other procedure is available but should not be used to obstruct or direct the ordinary course of criminal procedure. Such jurisdiction is designed to do substantial justice and the same is neither akin to appellate jurisdiction nor to the revisional jurisdiction. Such powers do not extend to uncalled for and unwarranted interference with the procedure prescribed by law, which must always be followed.
7. I deem it appropriate to refrain from making any observation about the merit of the case, lest it may prejudice the case of either party during the trial. Suffice it to say, that the grounds urged here hardly furnish any justification for quashment of the F.I.R. In exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. By now, law is settled by the apex Court that if, prima facie, an offence has been committed, the ordinary course of trial, before the competent, is not to be deflected by resting to exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
8. The jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is only meant to fill lacuna, existing in the Criminal Procedure Code, in the matters, for which, no specific provision or remedy has been provided. It would not be frequently applied for determining the guilt or innocence of an accused at premature stage. The august Supreme Court, through various pronouncements, has disapproved stifling and thwarting of criminal proceedings, as it is against the scheme provided by the Criminal Procedure Code. In this regard, reliance may be placed on celebrated judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled, "Sher Afghan Khan Niazi v. All Habib and others" (2011 SCM R 1813).
9. In light of the above discussion, petitioners have failed to make out a case of quashment, as such, this petition being devoid of any legal force stands dismissed.