Through this petition under section 561-A of the Cr.P.C., Mst. Manzooran, petitioner, wants the quashment of F.I.R. No. 201/90, dated 13-12-1990 under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood), Ordinance, 1979, registered against her and her paramour Manzoor Hussain at Police Station Khangarh.
2. The case is still at the investigation stage. By this time, no Challan having been submitted in the Court, there are no judicial proceedings pending before the Court. On querry as to whether F.I.R.
Can be quashed under section 561-A of the Cr.P.C., Mrs. Fakhr-un-Nisa, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Muhammad Uris v. The State 1990 MLD 1583; M. Siddiq Mirza and another v. Assistant Director, E.E. Cell (F.I.A.) and 3 others 1990 MLD 1588 and Falak Naz v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 798 to submit that police proceedings, even at the stage when the Challan has not yet been filed in the Court, can be quashed by this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
3. I have considered the matter carefully. 1 do not feel persuaded to agree with her. The case-law relied upon by her is quite distinguishable and do not apply to the facts of this case. Falak Naz case was decided on 5th of October 1971. The application,, for quashment was made by an approver. In hluhamma6 Uris's case, it has nowhere been stated that the High Court can awash the F.I.R or police proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under section 561-A. Cr.P.C. In that case, the proceedings were quashed in a case pending in the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Sukkur. In M. Siddiq Mirza's case, the proceedings were not quashed, rather writ petition filed for the quashment of the F.I.R. Was dismissed. The point as to whether or not the police proceedings, before the submission of the Challan, could be quashed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
Was not mooted although it was said that the remedy for quashing F.1.R. Was available under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. As an effective and alternate remedy yet the Constitutional petition inn that ground would be barred by Article 199 of the Constitution. The facts of that case are altogether different. In that case, the grievance of the petitioners was that they could not be subjected to enquiry by different agencies under two different F.I.R. Relating to the same offence as it will amount to putting them under double jeopardy.
4. Since by this time, no report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Has been filed in the Court and neither any proceedings arc pending before the Court nor any process has been issued by the Court against the petitioner, so the question of the quashment of proceedings under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is premature. The relevant section may be reproduced advantageous.
"Section 561-A. Cr.P.C.--- "Nothing in this Code hall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice".
The words "to give effect to any order under this Code", "to prevent abuse of process of any Court" and the words "to secure the ends of justice" when read together will show that this Court can/may exercise its, inherent power only when some order has been passed by the Court under Criminal Procedure Code or any process has been issued by any Court and not otherwise. The word "to secure the ends of justice" also relate to the Court proceedings and not to the police I proceedings or the registration of the F.I.R. Reliance way be placed on `Shahnaz Begum's case reported as PLD 1971 SC 677. For all these reasons I am convinced that the F.I.R. And subsequent investigation on basis thereof, cannot be quashed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. So the application is dismissed in limne.