' LAL JAN KHATTAK, J.---Petitioner Umar Daraz and others through the instant petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Seek quashment of F.I.R. No.350 dated 18-11-2013 lodged against them under section 365-A, P.P.C. At Police Station Prova, District D.I. Khan.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.5, Muhammad Aslam reported to the local police of Police Station Prova on 20-3-2013 to the effect that his brother Muhammad Afzal, who was asleep in his baithak preceding night, went missing therefrom. Initially nobody was suspected as accused for the untoward event but after the recovery of the abductee the petitioners along with five others were named as perpetrators of the crime and they were booked as accused for the abduction of Muhammad Afzal for ransom through the ibid F.I.R., quashment of which is now being sought by the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the petition contended that the petitioners- accused are quite innocent and they have been made accused in the case for some ulterior motive and are being victimized for personal grudges by the complainant. It was contended that there is unexplained delay in naming the petitioners as accused by the so-called abductee and the complainant which casts serious doubt on the bona fide and genuineness of the prosecution case. It was lastly argued that pendency of the case against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of the process of court.
4. Learned A.A.-G. And the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the quashment petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. .
6. Perusal of the case file reveals that the untoward incident of missing of abductee Muhammad Afzal was reported to the local police without any amount of delay. Record shows that on 25-10- 2013 the abductee reached his house on his own whereafter he was produced before a Judicial Magistrate for recording his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Which was so recorded on 18-11- 2013 wherein, he charged the petitioners by name along with five other accused for his abduction for ransom. He further stated in his ibid statement that his brother Muhammad Aslam has paid Rs.50,00,000 as ransom to his abductors for his release. Similar statement has also been recorded by the complainant Muhammad Aslam.
7. Tentative assessm ent of the available record shows that the petitioners prima facie have been connected with the commission of the offence with which they have been charged. The points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the quashment petition cannot be looked into at this stage by this court while exercising its inherit jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. As on the one hand there is a timely lodged report of the incident coupled with the statements under section 164, Cr.P.C. Of the abductee and of the complainant wherein the petitioners have charged for the offence while on the other hand there is bald assertion' of the petitioners pleading their innocence, therefore, invoking jurisdiction by this court under section 561- A, Cr.P.C. At this stage neither is legal nor proper. All that what has been addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners can well be argued at the proper forum and at proper time but not before this court under the ibid section of law.
8. Regarding the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of the pro-cess of the court, suffice it to say that no process has yet been issued by the concerned court which could be quashed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. By this court.
Moreso, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a judgment reported in 1996 SCM R 186 has ruled that the High Court in exercise of its power under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is not competent to quash an F.I.R.
9. For what has been discussed above, the instant quashment petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.