M.H. Sial, J.-Nazar Muhammad petitioner, has assailed order dated 10.12.1989 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Bahawalpur, whereby he allowed the criminal revision filed by Mst.
Faizan and three other respondents and set aside order dated 29.8.1989 of the learned Magistrate, Bahawalpur summoning the respondents for trial for offences under sections 506/380/379/109 P.P.C. mentioned in the complaint lodged by the petitioner against them.
2. The allegation against the respondents is that on 14.1.1989 they committed theft of ornaments and cash amounting to Rs.23600/- when the complainant and other members of his family were away from his house. The private complaint lodged by him was entrusted to the police for inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. On the receipt of the report the learned Magistrate seized of the matter also recorded some evidence. On 29.8.1989 he found prima facie case under sections 506/380/379/109 P.P.C, made out against the respondents. Accordingly he issued notice to them to face the trial.
Haji Khan Muhammad and his wife Mst. Faizan, Muhammad Ramzan and his wife Mst. Sakina respondents, challenged the afore-said order in criminal revision which was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur vide impugned order.
Aggrieved by the afore-mentioned order Nazar Muhammad complainant, filed this petition under section 561-A Cr.P.C, for setting aside the impugned order dated 10.12.1989 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erroneously set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate summoning the respondents to face trial under sections 506/380/379/109 PPC. It was further contended that the legal infirmities noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge called for remand of the case and not for quashment of the order of the learned Magistrate. It was also submitted that the respondents had already returned ornaments to the complainant but did not restore Rs.23,600/- stolen by them.
Learned counsel for petitioner admitted that the police in report under section 202 Cr.P.C, found the prosecution version doubtful. Muhammad Aslam respondent is real son of the complainant. Mst.
Safia is wife of Muhammad Aslam. Haji Khan Muhammad is father of Mst. Safia Bibi. Mst. Hafeezan is wife of Haji Khan Muhammad. Mst. Sakina wife of Muhammad Ramzan respondent is sister of Mst. Safia. Obviously the respondents are closely related to the complainant. In criminal revision Muhammad Aslam respondent who is son of the complainant alleged that he was previously residing with his father (complainant). He had abandoned his residence and started putting up with his father-in-law namely, Khan Muhammad respondent which was disliked by him and he manufactured the prosecution version to presssurise the respondents.
4. Learned counsel admitted that the case property viz the ornaments were not produced before the Magistrate. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on appraisal of evidence on record held a contrary view than that of the learned Magistrate. It was observed by him that the learned Magistrate did not record or peruse the evidence. Learned counsel read out the evidence but the same does not disclose commission of the offences allegedly committed by the respondents. He was unable to persuade this Court to have a different view than that of the learned Additional Session Judge. Nazar Muhammad is not an eye-witness of the occurrence, there is no evidence of criminal intimidation, the statements of Allah Rakha and Muhammad Akram do not inspire confidence.
The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A Cr.P.C after the impugned order was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in exercise of his jurisdiction under section 439-A Cr.P.C, which tantamounts to exercise of jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under section 439 Cr.P.C. The inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A Cr.P.C, is neither alternative nor additional jurisdiction, but is special jurisdiction preserved, in the interest of justice to redress grievance for which no other procedure is provided by law. This salutary power provided in this section, cannot be utilised to interrupt or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure.
This Court, therefore, is ordinarily reluctant to interfere in the normal criminal procedure unless the order is necessitated to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice.
5. For the reasons highlighted above and the evidence available on the record of the instant case, there is no justification for interference in the impugned order in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court embodied in section 561-A Cr.P.C. . In consequence, I find no substance in this petition and dismiss it in limine.