MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The petitioner named above seeks quashment of FIR No,14/2013 dated 27/7/2013 registered at FIA Police Station Crime Circle Gilgit. The contents of FIR are re-produced as under:- "An FIR was lodged at Police Station FIA G.B, on the spy information that one German based NGO gave medicines in aid to the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan of PKR 29 Million 64 thousand and 79 rupees, for the poor people of Gilgit, that medicine supplied to the Government Hospitals of G.B and an agreement was signed between Director of Health G.B. And Qazi Enterprises, but the medicines supplied to the Hospital of G.B belong to UN MISSION, the same may be recovered from there in raid, on such information we prepared a team for raid, the raid party reached at District Head Quarter Hospital along with magistrate and introduced them and produced the medicine, in which the store keeper Mairaj Alam son of Ghulam Khan told us that the said medicines were supplied by authorized person of Qazi Enterprises namely Basher and Jamaluddin and I delivered the same by the order of Higher Officers, therefore, the raiding team sealed the records, fake stamps and took sample of various medicines because Qazi Enterprises by the way of fraud and misrepresentation supply the medicine"
2. The petition in hand was filed on 9.4.2014 and a perusal of the order-sheets shows that the arguments could not be heard due to frequent adjournments sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner on one or other, pretext, which caused such a long delay is disposal for the instant petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted at bar that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated. The main contention of the learned counsel is that the FIR as alleged was lodged basing on spy information, whereas as evident from the available record it was lodged after receipt of a letter from NOVARTIS dated 24.7 2013 and the names of the petitione'rs are not figuring in the FIR.
4. The learned counsel forcefully argues that the aid in assistance was provided by a German based NGO for purchase of medicine and them contract was awarded to the petitioners, but mistakenly instead marking the medicines with "KFW" the UN Mission Gilgit was marked and to rectify the above inadvertent omission, a letter was addressed to Director Health Gilgit-Baltistan for necessary correction and the copies of such letter were also endorsed to (i) Chief Drug Inspector G.B. (ii). Medical Superintendent DHQ Hospital Gilgit and (iii). Representative KFW Gilgit.
5. The learned counsel submits that the FIR against the petitioners may be quashed in the larger interest of justice.
6. On the other hand the learned Deputy Attorney General vehemently opposed the petition and stated at bar that the petitioners by using professional skill and technical way and means of fraud tried to mis-appropriate the German Aid worth 2.9 million, which was donated by the German Government for supply of life saving drugs to the needy and poor people of Gilgit-Baltistan. He further submitted that challan has been put in court and let the trial Court decide the fate of the case and requested to dismiss the petition being not maintainable.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the record and the documents annexed with the petition. At the very outset, we may mention here that inherent powers vested in High Court are to be exercised in very rare and exceptional circumstances, when the Court comes to a definite conclusion that some exceptional circumstances existed in the case, which may compel the Court to exercise these powers but never ever where alternate remedy is provided by law itself.
8. The learned Dy. Attorney General was stated that the petitioners may approach to the trial Court by filing an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. And without availing such remedy at the 'first instance before the trial Court, the relief under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Cannot be claimed and granted by this Court.
9. There are certain broad principles, where the powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Could be exercised. A question arises in every prudent mind that what would be the compelling circumstances, where a declaration can be made that the action of Police was a colorful action, tainted with mala fides and cannot be protected under the umbrella of law. If a survey of the law cases and judgment of the superior Courts are examined the following broad principles could be laid down:-
(i) The agency/police, who registered the case was not having the jurisdiction to register the case.
(ii) From plain reading of FIR no offences seems to have been made out.
(iii) A pure civil nature case has been turned into criminal proceeding.
(iv) Probability of conviction is not possible and proceeding would tantamount to abuse process of law and Courts.
10. We are unable to agree with the learned Dy. Attorney General and reiterate that it is not a rule of law but a rule of propriety that the trial Court be approached at the first instance under section 249-A,Cr.P.C. Or 265-K, Cr.P.C. Only then an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Could be resorted to High Court. A High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Without waiting for an order to be passed by the trial Court under section 249-A or 265-A, Cr.P.C., but the pre-requisite to exercise these powers is, if the facts of the case so warrant to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Exercise of these inherent and extraordinary powers by High Court at pre-trial stage will not further in the interest of justice and we in summary proceedings cannot hold that the evidence so collected by the prosecution in the instant case is true or false, as from the perusal of record it seems that documentary as well as oral evidence against the petitioners is available and their learned counsel failed to convince us that there was no probability of their conviction or that continuance of criminal case against them would amount to abuse of process of Courts and law and quashment of the case will secure the ends of justice.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners failed to persuade us to quash the proceedings pending before Special Judge Anti-Corruption Gilgit at the infancy stage, hence the instant petition is hereby dismissed.