' ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, J.---Through the instant petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., petitioner Haji Zeri Gul, seeks quashment of F.I.R No.507 dated 7-9-2013, registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. At Police station Lakki District Lakki Marwat.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the questioned F.I.R. Is the result of mala fide and political influence on the part of the respondent-complainant just to involve the petitioner in a false case in order to grab money from him as nothing has been brought on record to connect him with any cognizable or non-cognizable offence; that Cheque No.2698084 was given to complainant by the petitioner on 3-11-2012 in respect of payment of Rs. 30,00,000 but before 3-11-2012, i.e. On 1-10- 2012, the complainant had already received Rs.60,00,000 from the petitioner vide Iqrarnama, therefore, he was legally and morally bound to return the Cheque to petitioner but he did not.
Learned counsel went on to say that as manifest from Iqrarnama Rs.5,00,000 were paid to the complainant-respondent by the petitioner on 10-2-2013 and Rs.23,00,000 on 22-4-2013.And in this way there was no amount outstanding against the petitioner, as such the complainant should have returned the Cheque to the petitioner but instead thereof he involved him in this false case; that the F.I.R. Has been registered illegally and no offence is made out even if the allegations made in the F.I.R., are accepted to be true hence the case being of no evidence at all the F.I.R. In question is liable to be quashed.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record appended with the petition.
4. Perusal of the F.I.R. In question reveals that it has been registered on the written application of complainant-respondent Ahmad Jan submitted before the local police wherein he has alleged that he had paid Rs.30,00,000 in cash as loan to the petitioner and the petitioner in order to return the said loan gave him Cheque No.B-2698084 on 3-11-2012; which on presentation before the Allied Bank seria Naurang on 5-11-2012, was bounced on the ground of no amount in the petitioner's account. The written complaint of the respondent was incorporated in daily diary No.7 dated 2-9- 2013, on the basis of which F.I.R. In question was registered. Along with the application, the respondent has annexed the alleged Cheque and report of the concerned Bank regarding insufficient balance in the petitioner's account. The petitioner has not denied the handing over of the Cheque to the complainant. In this way the Investigating Agency has collected sufficient material to constitute the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. And the stance of the petitioner that he had already paid the amount to complainant in cash and to this effect lqrarnama was also scribed, cannot be given weight in absence of evidence which is yet to be recorded by the trial Court. Moreso, nothing in black and white has been brought on record by the petitioner to show his efforts regarding return of the Cheque or his approach to the concerned Bank before its presentation to inform the competent authority regarding his cash payment to the complainant and to inform them about his insufficient amount in his account. In light of direct charge by the complainant, supported by material collected during, investigation, there is a prima facie case against the petitioner charged in the F.I.R.
5. In the given backdrop of the events, when a prima facie offence has been found committed then ordinary course of trial is not to be B deflected by resorting to quashment. The inherent powers of the High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Can only be invoked in extra ordinary cases, wherein, 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 C 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 this regard reference can be made to case titled, Rana shahid Ahinad Khan's case 2011 sCMR 1937 and case titled " Dr. Sher Afgan Khan Niazi v. Ali s. Habib and others (2011 sCMR 1813). The powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Can certainly not be so utilized as to interrupt or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure as laid down in the procedural statute and the High Court, as has repeatedly pointed out in a number of decisions, should be extremely reluctant to D interfere in a case where competent Court has after examining the evidence adduced before it, come to the view that a prima facie case is disclosed and has framed charge 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. The High Court must be careful to see that its decision is based on sound general principles of criminal jurisprudence and is not in conflict with them or with the intentions of the legislature as indicated in statutory provisions section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Does not authorize the Court to assume any new jurisdiction as jurisdiction has to be given by a statute and cannot be assumed.
6. In order to seek interference under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., three conditions to be fulfilled are:--
(1) The injustice which comes to light should be of a trivial character. The injustice which is noted is of a clear and palpable character and not of a doubtful character.
(3). There exists no other provision of law by which the party aggrieved could have sought relief.
' The power to be exercised under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is in its nature extraordinary which should be exercised, sparingly, carefully and with caution and only where such exercise is justified by the tests specially laid down in section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Itself. The 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.
7. No doubt, power of the High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Are unbridled and vast even to correct and rectify any process of abuse of process of Court and to pass such orders to secure ends of justice, but the same should not ordinarily be invoked as an alternate or additional jurisdiction to interrupt or divert the normal course of procedure as laid down in the relevant statute. Normally the High Court does not exercise its inherent jurisdiction unless there is gross miscarriage of justice and interference seems to be necessary to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure the ends of justice. 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 and that the provisions should not be used to obstruct or direct the ordinary course of criminal procedure.
8. For what has been discussed above, in the instant case, I see no such circumstance which may warrant interference of this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Resultantly, this petition being without any substance stands dismissed in limine.