' Applicant Mst. Aalima Ahmed owned a tractor which she had handed over to respondent No,2 for development of her lands situated in District Thatta. It is alleged that respondent No,2, in contravention of the written agreement misused this tractor and started renting it out to different persons. She, therefore, addressed a letter to Superintendent of Police Thatta, whereupon a case under section 406-420, P.P.C. Was registered against respondent No,2 at Police Station Gharo.
During the course of investigation the police recovered the said tractor and delivered it to applicant on Super digamma under the orders of Civil Judge and F.C.M. Gharo. After usual investigation the respondent No,2 was sent up in absentia to stand trial for the said offence in the Court of Civil Judge and F.C.M. Mirpur Sakro at Gharo. The case is held up as the respondent No,2 is still absconding. The applicant has now approached this Court by making application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., seeking quashment of the order of release of tractor on Superdginama against a surety of Rs,50,000 with direction to produce it on every date of hearing.
2. I have heard Mr. Raja Qureshi, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Salman Ansari, learned counsel for State.
3. The perusal of the record shows that applicant has come directly to this Court without exhausting other remedies available to her. Although she claims to have approached the Civil Judge and F.C.M. Gharo, for the discharge of surety bond, there is nothing on record to substantiate it. No specific mention about this fact has been made even in the affidavit filed by her in support of this application. The record of trial Court is also silent about it.
4. The inherent power of this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is recognized only to meet those cases for which no provision is made in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Where other remedies are available the inherent jurisdiction is not to be invoked as a matter of course. It is noted with concern that the parties have started making applications of this nature directly to the High Court, although the remedies are available before lower Courts. It is now high time that such practice should he checked.
5. For the above reasons, I would dismiss the application filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The applicant may approach the trial Court or the Court C of Sessions, as the case may be, if she is so advised.