' LAL JAN KHATTAK, J.---Petitioner through the instant petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Seeks quashment of the F.I.R. No,128 dated 11-4-2012 under sections 379, 408, 411, P.P.C. Registered against him at Police Station Pahar Pur, District D.I. Khan.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-complainant Hashmatullah Khan moved a written application to the DPO D.I. Khan mentioning therein that he is owner of an Oil Tanker whereas Muhammad Altaf and Muhammad Ilyas are driver and cleaner of the Oil Tanker respectively. The complainant further narrated in his application that 50,000 litters diesel oil has been stolen from his Oil Tanker by his driver and others. On the strength of this application, the local police started enquiry under section 156(3), Cr.P.C. And during investigation it was unearthed to the local police that in connivance of the driver and cleaner of the Oil Tanker the petitioner, who runs a petrol pump, has purchased 50,000 liters diesel which was loaded in the Oil Tanker and which was a trust with the driver and cleaner. After completion of the enquiry the petitioner, along with the driver and others, was booked as accused in the aforementioned case for his purchasing 50,000 liters diesel from driver of the Oil Tanker.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition contended that there is a delay of about 10 days in reporting the matter to the police by the complainant, that no receipt has been produced by the complainant regarding his purchasing or loading of 50,000 liters diesel in his Oil Tanker from any oil refinery nor any material has been recovered from the petitioner showing his connection with the commission of the offence. He further contended that there is not an iota of evidence against the petitioner which could show his involvement in commission of the crime.
4. As against the above, learned Additional Advocate-General contended that there is prima facie case against the petitioner and that he has not approached the lower forum, where the case is pending adjudication, for the redressal of his grievance, if any.
5. Perusal of the record shows that case against the accused-petitioner has been put in the court of competent jurisdiction for its trial and the learned trial Court while assuming jurisdiction over the case has issued summons to the accused for their appearance in the court. When cognizance of the case has duly been taken by a court of competent jurisdiction and a date of hearing has been fixed by the court, then proper course would be to apply first to the court concerned for earning acquittal under the relevant provision of law and this exercise can be done at any time even before the framing of charge. Without making recourse to the above, rushing direct to this court for quashing an F.I.R. Under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is something which seems to be beyond the mandate and scope of the inherent Jurisdiction conferred upon this court under section ibid as recourse to this section can only be made in exceptional cases and circumstances which is not the case of the petitioner here.
6. All the contentions of the learned counsel can be well-addressed at the proper time and at a proper forum as bare perusal of the record of the case shows that the petitioner has been charged by the complainant for purchasing 50,000 litters diesel illegally from the driver of the Oil Tanker belonging to the complainant which was a trust with the driver. There is statement of driver of the oil tanker made by him to the police in which he has disclosed that he has sold out 50,000 litters diesel to the petitioner. Apart from the above statement of the driver Muhammad Altaf, there is an agreement duly signed by the petitioner wherein he has agreed to pay the price of the diesel to the complainant.
7. Another aspect of the case is that apart from the petitioner, driver and cleaner of the oil tanker along with some other persons have also been charged for commission of the offence who have not applied for the quashment of F.I.R. And in case the instant F.I.R. Is quashed on the basis of submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner then the other co-accused would also be let free which is neither the scope nor purpose of section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
8. In view of the above, this court is of the view that no case for quashing the F.I.R. Has been made out by the petitioner under the inherent jurisdiction of this court. Therefore, the instant petition being bereft of any merit is dismissed as such. al.