ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J.---The petitioner filed instant petition for quashment of FIR bearing No. 06 of 2015 Police Station Rarasham District Musa Khail with the prayer: "Accordingly respectfully prayed, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash FIR No. 06/2015, offence under sections 302, 147, 149, 109, P.P.C. Police Station Rarasham District Musakhail as well as proceedings pending before the Sessions Judge, Musakhail to the extent of petitioner , in the interest of justice."
2. Precise facts of the instant petition are that on 17th September 2015; FIR No. 06 of 2015 was registered with Police Station Rarasham Disirict Musa Khail, on the report of Syed Faiz Muhammad Shah, with the allegation that the petitioner along with co-accused have committed murder of Inayatullah Shah and Atta Muhammad Shah by means of axes and dandas. The motive was alleged to be landed dispute between the parties.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner . The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this court acquitted convict Ashraf Ali Shah in the said case and disbelieved the prosecution evidence. The case of the petitioner stands on same footing. The trial of the petitioner is futile exercise. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on: Gulab Khan v . The State PLJ 2008 FSC 87 Miraj Khan v . Gul Ahmed and others 2000 SCMR 122 Allah Rakhio and others v .The State 2001 PCr .LJ 551 Maritime Security Agency , Karachi v . Muhammad Saleem Khan and others PLD 1994 SC 486
4. Record of the case perused. Admittedly the challan of the case has been submit ted before the trial court wherein the petitioner has clearly been implicated. The petitioner has been declared absconder by the court of law.
Admittedly this court has power to quash the proceeding of a criminal case. The petitioner was nominated in case of capital punishment. It would be appropriate to afford opportunity to the prosecution to produce evidence and establish its case. The exercise of power under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. amounts to deprive the prosecution to prove guilt of the accused. It was repeatedly held by the Apex Court C that the provision of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. could not ordinarily be used. The power conferred under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is neither alternative nor additional. In this regard reliance is placed on the case of Chaudhary Munir v . Mst. Surriya PLD 2007 SC 189 . It was held:
9. The provisions as contained in section 561-A, Cr.P.C. were also examined in case Ghulam Muhammad v.
Muzammal Khan (PLD 1967 SC 317) wherein it was observed that "it is generally accepted that the inherent jurisdiction should not normally be invoked where another remedy is available. Inherent powers are preserved to meet a lacuna in the Criminal Procedure Code in extraordinary cases and are not intended for vesting the High Courts with powers to make any order which they are pleased to consider to be in the interests of justice. These powers are as much controlled by principles and precedents, as are its express statutory powers." It was further observed that "the inherent jurisdiction given by section 561-A is not an alternative jurisdiction or an additional jurisdiction but it is a jurisdiction preserved in the interest of justice to redress grievances for which no other procedure is available or has been provided by the Code itself The power given by this section can certainly not be so utilized as to interrupt or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure as laid down in the procedural statute."
5. The petitioner firstly has to approach the trial court and avail the remedy provided under the law. Ordinary this court cannot interfere in the powers vested to them. In absence of exercise of powers by the trial court, High Court, except in exceptional cases, would not ordinarily quash the criminal proceedings. Reliance is placed on the case of Dr. Sher Afgan Khan Niazi v. Ali S. Habib , 2011 SCMR 1813 . The judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguished. Each case has its own peculiar circumstances.
In view the above, the petition is dismissed in limine.