MOHAMMED KARIM KHAN AGHA, J.---Through this petition the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR No,01/2015, under Sections 56, 66 and 71 Copyright Ordinance, 1962 lodged by FIA, ACC Karachi on 01.01.2015 and all proceedings in this FIR as well as notice dated 01.01.2015 issued by I.O. of the FIA.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are quite innocent and they have falsely been implicated in this false case with mala fide intention and ulterior motive and the petitioners are authorized dealer and importer of "MENA" Facial Cream - Made in Thailand with the name of Winsome Enterprises. It was further argued that the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners are not made out against the petitioners even after a detailed reading of the FIR and interim challan and as such he cannot be prosecuted under those sections against which he has been charged as the necessary ingredients for the offenses are missing. As such since there was no chance of conviction and to allow the trial to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law he submitted that the FIR should be quashed.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No,2 opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners while raising objections that the instant petition is not maintainable under the law and the petitioners are involved in the commission of the offence for which the FIR has been lodged and in this connection and more than sufficient evidence is available with the prosecution to prove its case against the petitioners and as such the matter should be left to the Trial Court for determination based on the evidence before it. He therefore contended that the instant petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for respondent No,2 placed reliance on the cases of Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others (2006 SCM R 276) and Director General, Anti- Corruption Establishment, Lahore and others v. Muhammad Akram Khan and others (PLD 2013 SC 401).
5. Likewise Learned Standing Counsel submitted that sufficient material is available on record against the petitioners to connect them to the commission of the alleged offence and as such the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. We have considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No,2 and learned Standing Counsel, perused the record and the case-law cited by them at the Bar.
7. ##TS## It is an admitted position that the FIR has been lodged and a challan has been submitted before the trial court which has taken cognizance of the same.
8. It is settled law that once a trial court has taken cognizance of the matter then the High Courts should not as a rule quash the FIR in their Constitutional jurisdiction since the petitioners have alternative remedies available to them before the trial court.
9. In this respect we are fortified by the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director General, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Lahore and others v. Muhammad Akram Khan & others (PLD 2013 SC 401) which at P.402 held as under:-- "2. After hearing the learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondent No,1 and having gone through the record of the case with their assistance we have found that through the impugned order the learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore had partially quashed the relevant FIR to the extent of respondent No,1 whereas partial quashing of an FIR to the extent of some of the accused persons mentioned therein is a legal impossibility. Apart from that the impugned order had been passed by the learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore at the time when a Challan in the relevant criminal case had already been submitted before the learned trial court and the learned Trial Court had already taken cognizance of the case. The law is quite settled by now that after taking of cognizance of a case by a trial court the FIR registered in that case cannot be quashed and the fate of the case and of the accused persons challaned therein is to be determined by the trial court itself. It goes without saying that if after taking of cognizance of a case by the trial court an accused person deems himself to be innocent and falsely implicated and he wishes to avoid the rigors of a trial then the law has provided him a remedy under sections 249-A/ 265-K, Cr.P.C. to seek his premature acquittal if the charge against him is groundless or there is no probability of his conviction." (bold added)
10. Under these circumstances we are of the considered view that an adequate alternative remedy is available with the petitioners who, if so advised, may move the trial court under the relevant provisions of law for relief and, as such this petition is hereby dismissed.