1. ' This is an application under section 561, Cr.P.C. Filed for quashment of proceedings which are pending in the Court of Additional City Magistrate, Phuleli, Hyderabad arising from a direct complaint filed under sections 406, 420 and 34, P.P.C. In the direct complaint Jawed Saleem, who is respondent before me is complainant and is stated to be related to the other parties. Direct complaint is filed against Mst. Urooj Begum, Mst. Rizwana and Shahid, who are daughter and son of Mst. Urooj Begum. It is further stated that Jawed Saleem has married his daughter Mst. Almas to Shahid and after some time the relations between the parties became far from happy. It is further stated that after direct complaint was filed the trial Court conducted preliminary enquiry and examined the complainant and P.Ws. Anwer and Roobena under section 200, Cr.P.C. And then ordered for issuance of process in the shape of bailable warrants in the sum of Rs,5,000 for the reason that according to the Court prima facie case under section 420 had been made out. In the direct complaint it is mentioned that on 11-6-1983 persons named therein and accused came and borrowed from the wife of the complainant Golden Nacklace with three strings and gold of 12 Tolas for making Bangles, this gold was taken to Karachi to be given to goldsmith to make Bangles and Nacklace had to be used to show the same for design.
2. ' It is further stated that after issuance of process no appearance was made by applicants who are accused persons in the case before the trial Court and Criminal Miscellaneous Application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Was filed in the High Court which was admitted for hearing vide order. Dated 20-11-1983. Vide Order dated 27-11-1983 proceedings in the lower Court were stayed till further order.
3. ' I have heard Mr.M.A.Kazi learned counsel for the applicants as well as Mirza Ghiasuddin Beg learned counsel for respondent No,1 and Mr. Makhdoom Abdul Wali for the State in detail. The first legal point spotlighted is that since under the Criminal Procedure Code section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Is available under which it.Is contemplated that nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from acquitting an accused at any stage of the case if after hearing the prosecutor and the accused and for reasons to be recorded, he considres that the charge is groundless or that there is no probability of accused being convicted of any offence. Without any dispute it can be said that this provisiop enables the trial Court to acquit the accused at any stage of the proceeding for the reason that either the charge is groundless or there is no probability that accused would be convicted. These powers which are remedial in nature have been conferred by the Legislature on the trial Court. In these circumstances it would be in the fitness of things if trial Court is approached first for relief under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. before making an application to the High Court for exercise of inherent jursidiction contemplated under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. It can be said that if relief sought under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is same or similar to the one grantable under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. By the trial Court, then the aggrieved party first must approach the trial Court for relief and after failing there can subsequently approach the High Court for relief sought. In fact whatever arguments have been raised before me by Mr.M.A.Kazi, the same can be raised before the trial Court which is also competent enough to grant relief if convinced on the merits of the case. I am supported in this view by a long string of authorities and these cases are of Khushi Muhammad v. State 1979 SCM R 94, Lateef Qureshi v. State 1982 SCM R 101, A. Rahim Zubari and another v. Nizamuddin and others 1983 P Cr. L J 467, Nasir All v. Munshi Mehr Khan PLD 1981 SC 607.
4. ' Mr.Ashraf Kazi contended before me that Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Does not apply to proceedings of direct complaints. In support of the argument he has cited three cases decided by my learned brother Z.C. Valiani, J (as he then was). First case is that of Hussain Bux and others v. Noor Mohammad and another 1983 P Cr. L J 1585 Second case is Hasina Bano v. State 1983 P Cr. L J 132.
5. Third case is Abdul Rehman and 18 others 1983 P Cr. L J 484. In the first two cases interference was made on the ground that dispute was of civil nature and civil litigation was pending. Even in these cases it was not held that section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Does not apply to direct complaint cases but was held that in the circumstances and for reasons no useful purpose would be served in applying to the trial Court under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. The third reported case is a criminal case which was pending for offences under sections 307 and 120-B, P.P.C. Proceedings were quashed by the High Court on the ground that trial Court had not recorded statements of prosecution witnesses after issuance of process and the statements of those witnesses which had already been recorded did not prove, alleged conspiracy in the commission of offences. In the circumstances it was thought that if application was filed under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Before the trial Court it would be an exercise in futility. These repotted cases mentioned above are distinguishable and even in these cases it had not been held that section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Is not applicable to direct complaint cases. It would be pertinent to mention here that in exceptional, extraordinary and hardship cases, interference can be made by the High Court straightaway under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. When there are compelling reasons permitted under law. Such inteference straightaway without compliance of section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Is an exception rather than a rule. Normally alternate remedy under sections 249-A, Cr.P.C. And 265-K. Cr.P.C. Must be availed before coming to the High Court for relief under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For the facts and reasons mentioned above I dismiss this application filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. And leave it open to the parties to contest proceedings in the trial Court where the accused persons can file application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Which the learned trial Magistrate is directed to dispose of within one month.