MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The petitioner has been booked by the local police on the above charges vide FIR No. 46/2017 under sections 417/468/406, P.P.C. registered at Police Station City, Gilgit.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that during hearing of case titled Jumla Malikan-e-Batokhel v. Saif Ullah, it divulged to the learned trial Court that the petitioner by mis-representation and fraud has drawn the award of Khasra No. 673 amounting to Rs. 4,94,56,250.00 and was reluctant to pay back the amount. On the written orders of learned trial Court the above referred FIR was lodged.
3. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., for quashment of FIR on a series of grounds. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the amount was properly released by the referee Court on 14.12.2016 and the offences imposed in the FIR are not attracted. The end result would be acquittal of the petitioner from the false and motivated charges.
4. On the other hand the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner committed a fraud and got a huge amount after applying deceitful tactics. There is a prima facie case against the petitioner and FIR should not be quashed. The learned Additional Advocate General further contended that this Court has laid down certain principles for quashment of the criminal cases in various judgments and the present case falls out of the purview and the scope of section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at a considerable length. There is no doubt in the legal proposition that jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is neither additional nor alternate jurisdiction. The provisions of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. could be invoked by a party, where no alternate remedy is available. The provisions of this section cannot be used to divert the normal procedure meant for trial of criminal cases by the Court of competent jurisdiction. The alternate remedy to the petitioner is available under sections 249-A, Cr.P.C., and 265-K, Cr.P.C. This Court in summary proceedings cannot assume the role of investigating agency and these powers cannot be used to override an expression of law, meaning thereby that these powers cannot be exercised by Chief Court, when a matter could be dealt with by an ordinary Court of criminal jurisdiction. The learned counsel could not convince the Court for filing of the instant petition before this Court, without. first availing the remedies available under sections 249-A, Cr.P.C, and 265-K, Cr.P.C.
7. As a sequel of above discussion the petition in hand is dismissed being meritless.