1. Above titled petition has been filed to quash F.I. R. mat. No, 150/2015 in offences under Sections 324,.:341, and 34, A.P.0 dated 31.10.2016 registered at Police Station, Dudyal on the complaint of Abdul Barar Rafique.
2. 2.For the sake of brevity I am not inclined to narrate the brief facts of the (sic) incorporated in the aforementioned 3.Learned counsel for the accused petitioner reiterated the grounds taken in the application and submitted that the impugned F.I.R may be quashed on the ground that the same has been registered illegally against accused-petitioner.
3. 4.On the other side, it was argued that the accused petitioner fired upon the complainant with intention to kill the complainant which hit wind screen and bonnet of the Car thus they have committed a heinous offence. The matter after investigation is before the trial Court. Material brought on record is sufficient to connect the accused petitioner with the alleged offences, thus there is no justification to quash F.I.R, therefore, the captioned petition may be dismissed.
4. 5.I have heard the learned counsel for applicants and learned Assistant Advocate General representing the State and gone through the record of the case.
5. 6.For having true perception, I would like to reproduce Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., which is as under: - "561/A. Cr.P.C. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
6. It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is neither alternative nor additional in its character and is to be rarely invoked only in the interest of justice so as to seek redress of grievance for which no other procedure is available and that the provision should not be used to obstruct or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure. Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. confers upon this Court inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this code or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Although these powers are very wide and can be exercised by this Court at any time but within the limits prescribed in law. My this view finds support from a case reported as "Khadim Hussain v. Abdul Basit," 2001 SCR 447. Wherein it was observed asunder: "we are of the view that the High. Court has no jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings at the stage of investigation thereafter as has been held in number of case, referred to above, by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. It may be further pointed out that the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction is not competent to assume the role investigating agency or the trial. Court to give verdict as to whether an accused person has committed an offence or not. It is for the ordinary Court to decide the matter under the relevant law."
7. It was further observed in a case reported as "Perveen Azam & others vs. S.S.P District Mirpur & 4 others" (2015 SCR 837) which reads as follows: "According to the enforced law, the investigating agency vested with the Powers to investigate the matter impartially. Consequently the Courts avoid to interfere with the investigation unless there appears any visible departure from or violation of the principle of law.
8. In a case the proposition was resolved in case reported as "Allah Bakhsh & another yrs. The State, (PLD 2013 Peshawar 117). It was held as under: "In the contents of the instant petition and that of the F.I.R. are put in juxtaposition to each other, it brings the case of the parties within the area of disputed questions of facts and law which cannot be resolved by this Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. which requires proper probe, investigation and evidence of the parties, which is absolutely the job of the trial Court. By now it a settled law that if, prima facie, an offence has been committed, the ordinary course of trial before the competent Court cannot be allowed to be deflected by resorting to the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court."
7. Falsehood and truthfulness of the contents of the FIR cannot be determined by this Court. It is for the investigating agency and the trial Court to resolve the question of fact. My this view is fortified from a case reported as "Mohammad Khan v. The State (2011 M LD 1288) in which following observation was made: "Truthfulness or falsehood of the allegations leveled in any F.I.R can only be thrashed out by a detailed enquiry for which law provides a prescribed procedure and the competent forum. Any departure from the said procedure would amount to obstruct or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure, which is not permissible under the law.
9. Even otherwise it cannot be presumed that at this stage that the occurrence did not take place.
10. The investigating agency after collecting the evidence can conclude this matter. An F.I.R is quashed when there is violation of any law or from bare reading of the F.I.R it does not constitute the offence or there is a bar under law for initiation of criminal proceedings or the FIR has been registered without lawful authority. But no such eventuality existed in the present case. From bare reading of the F.I.R it constitutes the cognizable offences. In the present case, if the petitioner feels that he has a good case to advance, he can put his plea before investigating agency or the trial Court as the case may be, or raise his grounds before the learned trial Court by filing an application under the relevant provision of law but this Court cannot id as investigating officer trial Court. It may be mentioned here Challan has been submitted before the trial Court, therefore an effective remedy under Section 265-K/249-A,Cr.P.C. is available to the petitioner.
11. In view of the above observation, finding no force in this application, it is hereby dismissed.