This is a petition by Mst. Zubaida Mai, under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the quashment of investigation of First Information Report No. 150/72 dated 7th August 1972, registered at Police Station, Mailsi in Multan District, at the instance of her father Ahmad Yar respondent No. 2, under section 366 of the Pakistan Penal Code, against Haji Muhammad, Muhammad Nawaz and Tai Muhammad, brothers of her husband Ghazi Muhammad.
2. The facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that her father respondent No. 2 agreed to marry her to Ghazi Muhammad for a consideration of Rs. 1,100 for which, a deed, a photostat copy of which is Annexure ---B---, was executed by her husband in favour of her father on 14 May 1969.
The marriage took place on 20 January 1970, and was duly registered in the Register of Marriages in Union Council No. 160, village Dhillo, Tehsil Mailsi, District Multan. Photostat copy of the marriage certificate is Annexure ---A---. The petitioner then took up residence with her husband n the house of her parents. However, her father, who was a greedy person, started creating trouble and intending to marry the petitioner else where, for monetary benefit, lodged a false report against the brothers of her husband. Finding no alternative but to leave her parents along with her: husband, the petitioner took up abode at Chah Inayatwala Dakhli Village Dhallu.
3. The petitioner contends that she is sui juris and wanted to live with her husband of her own free will and had not been abducted by anybody, as alleged by her father in the report lodged by him.
The report was totally untrue. The petitioner apprehends that, if the trial started, she would be forced to appear in the Court, which would cause unnecessary harassment to her. It was thus inexpedient in the interest of Justice that the investigation should be allowed to proceed.th th
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kamal Mustafa Bokhari, learned Assistant Advocate-General, et the preliminary hearing.
5. I am of the opinion that investigation of a case register with the police cannot be quashed by invoking powers conferred on the High Court by section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Inherent powers in this section are preserved to meet A a lacuna in the Criminal Procedure Code in extraordinary case and are not intended to vest the High Court with powers to make any order, which it considers to be in the interest of justice. If any authority for the aforesaid proposition is needed, I may refer to the case bf Ghulam Muhammad v. Muhammad Khan and 3 others (PLD 1967 SC 317), I may also, in this respect, refer to the case of Sher Khan and others v. The State (1968 SCMR 62) where the facts were that Sher Khan and others sought quashment of a case registered with the police under sections 148, 452/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, by invoking section 551-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court held that such powers could not be derived from the section to make the desired order. The High Court relied on the case of Ghulam Muhammad, referred to above, Mr. Justice A. R. Cornelius, C. J., as he then was, was pleased to observe in page 63 of the judgment:- "The decision is plainly correct."
Such a matter again came up for consideration in the case of Shahnaz Begum v. Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan (PLD 1971 SC 677). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, after review of the entire case-law on the subject, came to the conclusion that the High Court had no power under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to interfere with the police investigation into a criminal offence. It was observed:- "If an investigation is launched mala fide or is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of the investigating agencies concerned then it may be possible for the action of the investigating agencies to be corrected by a proper proceeding either under Article 98 of Constitution of 1962 or under the provisions of section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if the applicant is in the latter case in detention, but not by invoking the inherent power under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code."
It would be interesting to note, that the persons against whom the case has been registered, have not come as petitioners. The petitioner, at best, would be a prosecution witness and if the case is false, the accused would be entitled to acquittal. However, in view of the authorities mentioned above, I am of the opinion that the High Court cannot interfere with the investigation of a case registered at police station. Thus finding no merit in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed in limine.