1. ' BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.---Mst. Sabran Bibi moved an application addressed to the Chief Justice of the High Court for 'taking action against the respondent'. It was alleged that Shoukat Hussain prepared a forged power of attorney on behalf of Mst. Sabran Bibi with the connivance of Ajaib Khan and got it attested from the Sub-Judge, Mirpur on February 13, 1993. The application was registered as Criminal Misc. No,11 of 1993. Notices were issued to the non-applicants. Ajaib Khan appeared in the Court and he was ordered to produce Shoukat Hussain and an opportunity was given to him to do that. Shoukat Hussain's father appeared on the next date of hearing and informed the learned Chief Justice that Shoukat Hussain had gone to Lahore and will be back after 5/6 days. The statement of Fazal Karim a marginal witness of power-of-attorney who was present in the Court was recorded. He stated that Mst. Sabran Bibi was not present when the power-of- attorney was executed. Thereupon the following order was passed:- "In view of the facts listed above, prima facie, it is a case of fraud and forgery. Therefore, it is sent to local police, Mirpur for holding inquiry and taking legal action against the accused, if any. The application is disposed of accordingly."
2. ' The order passed by the High Court was challenged before this Court and leave to appeal was granted. The appeal was set down for ex parte hearing. However, we felt that assistance of some of the members of the Bar was necessary, therefore, we requested the learned Advocate-General, Mr. Sardar Khan, as well as Ch. Muhammad Sharif Tariq and Mr. Muhammad Yunus Arvi, Advocates, to assist the Court as amicus curiae.
3. ' Mr. Muhammad Azam Khan, the learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the application was treated by the High Court as a complaint, but the High Court had no power to directly take cognizance of the complaint as it should have been filed with the trial Court. He submitted that even otherwise when a Court itself conducts an inquiry into the case and comes to the, conclusion that there is a prima facie case a direction to the Police cannot be issued for holding another inquiry. He explained that under Section 202, Cr.P.C. When a complaint is lodged a Court may either inquire into the case itself or may direct an inquiry or investigation to be made by a Police Officer. Mr. Muhammad Azam Khan submitted that after having come to the conclusion that prima facie it was a case of fraud and forgery the High Court asked the Police for holding inquiry which was not legally permissible even if the Court had the power to directly entertain a complaint.
4. ' Mr. Muhammad Yunus Arvi, Advocate, submitted that section 561-A of the Cr.P.C. And section 35 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Courts and Laws Code of 1949 gave sufficient powers to the High Court to justify the order passed by the High Court. Mr. Muhammad Sharif Tariq was of the view that the order passed by the High Court was sustainable in light of section 19 of the Courts and Laws Code. The learned Advocate-General, Mr. Sardar Khan, expressed the opinion that the order passed by the High Court was not valid in law because once when a prima fade case is made out the police could not be directed to hold inquiry. He also submitted that the High Court could not directly entertain a complaint.
5. We are of the view that the order passed by the High Court is not covered by any provision of law.
6. Section 35 of the Courts and Laws Code mentioned above vests in the High Court the power of superintendence and control over the Courts but in the present case no direction has been given to a subordinate Court by the High Court but a direction has been given to the Police. Therefore, we do not find that section 35 has any relevance in the matter. Section 561-A of the Cr.P.C. Can be pressed into service only where the process of the Court is being abused or it is otherwise necessary to pass the order to secure the ends of justice, but this power can only be exercised if there is no other legal provision to meet a situation. In the present case there are more than one other remedies which are available to the respondents. Under section 19 of the Courts and Laws Code the High Court has been given power to direct the transfer of any criminal case from one Court to another and also to re-direct the preliminary investigation or trial. The power given in this section presupposes that preliminary investigation or trial had already commenced. As already seen in this case preliminary investigation was held by the High Court itself and therefore there was no question of re-directing or directing the preliminary investigation. The respondent did not state in the application moved before the High Court that she had tried to register a case with the police but the police were refusing to do so.
7. ' Under the scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code a complaint cannot be directly filed with the High Court. The only exception is provided for in section 194 of the Cr.P.C. That section lays down that the High Court can only directly take cognizance of an offence if the Advocate-General, with the previous sanction of the Government, exhibits to the High Court information for the purposes for which Her Majesty's Attorney-General may exhibit information's on behalf of the Crown in the High Court of Justice in England. There is no other provision of law under which the High Court can directly take cognizance of an offence.
8. ' The present order even otherwise is not covered by section 202, Cr.P.C. As rightly contended by Mr. Muhammad Azam Khan. The preliminary inquiry has been conducted by the High Court 'itself and if the application moved before the High Court was treated as a complaint the High Court should have issued a process against the accused persons rather than directing another inquiry. But even that could not be done because a complaint cannot be filed in a High Court.
9. ' It is important to note that the High Court came to the conclusion that a prima facie case of fraud and forgery had been made out but in presence of this conclusion the police was given the liberty of holding another inquiry and thus a possibility was created that the police may form a different conclusion than the one reached by the High Court. This is clearly a situation which cannot be visualised in our system of administration of justice.
10. In certain cases it was held that the High Court is authorised to direct the police to register a case and inquire into the allegation but that can only be done if it is submitted before the High Court that the police was refusing to register a case. No such situation exists in the present case. Apart from that if such an application is moved before the High Court, the High Court does not itself conduct an inquiry because the very purpose of holding of inquiry or investigation is to find out whether there is a prima facie case and that function has to be performed by the police if a first information is lodged.
11. ' We have also considered the possibility that the impugned order might be justified in light of section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act which confers writ jurisdiction of the High Court. However, we find that the procedure laid down in the High Court Procedure Rules for hearing of writ petitions has not been followed. There is no order of admission and the respondents were not zalled upon to file their written statements as is mandatory in a writ petition.
12. In this connection we may rely on a judgment of this Court Municipal Committee, Dadyal v. Mistri Abdul Rehman and others 1992 M LD 1289 which fortifies the conclusions recorded above.
13. ' The upshot of the foregoing analysis is that the appeal is accepted and the order passed by the High Court is set aside.