' Through this quashment petition, the petitioners have made the following prayer:-- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the impugned order, dated 20-12-1994 passed by learned Magistrate First Class, Chishtian Sharif, District Bahawalnagar and the proceedings in the case titled `Muhammad Yar v. Muhammad Siddique and 10 others' under section 325/323/148/149; P.P.C.
As detailed in the head note of this petition may very kindly be quashed."
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the above-noted petition are that respondent No,1 filed a private complaint against the petitioners alleging therein that the respondent party and petitioners had gathered at Police Station Saddar Chishtian on 15-6-1990 in connection with Punchayat convened qua case registered vide FIR. No,182/90 under section 435/427, P.P.C. At the instance of petitioner No,1. When the Punchayat was over, respondent No,1 alongwith others were standing outside the police- station in the main road. The petitioners armed with their respective weapons attacked and gave beating to him and his witnesses. Respondent No,1 (complainant), Sultan, Muhammad Akram and Bashir Ahmad went to the police station in an injured condition and got F.I.R. No,205/90 lodged under section 147, P.P.C. The case was investigated and the same was found to be false which was accordingly cancelled. Being dissatisfied with the investigation the complainant filed the afore- referred' complaint. Statement of the complainant and preliminary evidence was recorded which consisted of Muhammad Hanif, Sultan, Muhammad Bashir, Muhammad Akram and Khan Muhammad. The learned trial Magistrate dismissed the complaint vide his order, dated 18-3-1993 on the ground that as the complainant party were being proceeded in case registered vide F.I.R.
No,182/90 under section 435/427, P.P.C. At the instance of petitioner No,1, the possibility could not be ruled out that the private complaint was lodged as a counter-blast. This order of the learned Magistrate was challenged in the revision and the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar vide his judgment, dated 29-9-1994 accepted the revision and directed the learned trial Court to go through the evidence afresh, summon the Medical Officer alongwith the medico-legal reports with a view to ascertain the nature and seats of injuries received by the prosecution witnesses. Having conducted the afore-referred exercise, the learned trial Magistrate summoned the petitioners vide his order, dated 20-12-1994. This order of summoning was challenged in revision by the petitioners which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar vide his order, dated 30-1-1995 which is impugned in this quashment petition.
2. In support of their petition, the petitioners have raised the following pleas:--
(i) That the entire evidence was recorded by the Reader of the learned trial Magistrate.
(ii) That the prosecution story does not appeal to common sense and there is no tenable evidence on record to warrant petitioners' trial.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent has defended the impugned order and has submitted as follows:--
(i) That having availed of the remedy by way of filing a revision and the same having been dismissed, the provisions of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Cannot be invoked.
(ii) The plea allegation that the evidence was not recorded by the learned trial Magistrate himself was not taken before the learned revisional Court and it is merely an afterthought.
(iii) That the prosecution consists of four injured witnesses who received as many as twenty injuries. The F.I.R. Was lodged promptly and the same was cancelled on account of dishonest investigation.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the preliminary evidence led before the learned trial Court.
5. Provisions of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Can be invoked if it is shown that the prosecution is, motivated by malice and the evidence on record, even if accepted to be true, no offence is made out and that the continuation of proceedings before the learned trial Court would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
6. I have gone through the preliminary evidence, certified copies of which have been appended with this quashment petition. Six witnesses were examined including the Dental Surgeon. A bare reading of the statements of injured witnesses would indicate that prima facie respondent No,1 and others were victims of assault in consequence of which they received injuries. For the purposes of summoning in a private complaint these witnesses stand duly corroborated by Dr. Nazir Ahmad, Dental Surgeon. Thus, it cannot be said that the private complaint filed and the proceedings initiated are an abuse of the process of the Court- to warrant interference under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
' In a judgment reported in Muhammad Gulshan v. Muhammad Inayat 1978 SCMR 193, the Honourable Supreme Court upheld the order of this Court wherein the quashment petition was dismissed as allegations in F.I.R. Prima facie disclosed commission of a cognizable offence, interference was held to be not warranted.
7. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The petitioner unsuccessfully assailed the order of the learned trial Magistrate whereby they were summoned to face trial before the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar vide his order, dated 30-1-1995 dismissed the revision. There is no cavil with the proposition that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is concurrent with that of the Court of Sessions as envisaged under section 439-A, Cr.P.C. The provisions of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. On the other hand relate to inherent jurisdiction of this Court which stipulates that nothing in the Code of Criminal. Procedure shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any Bidder under this Code, or prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends .Of justice. Inherent jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, cannot be invoked as an additional or alternative remedy. The petitioner has to show that there are special circumstances and no other remedy is available and that non-interference Would result in an abuse of the process of the Court. Even otherwise this was an interlocutory order. The petitioner shall have ample opportunities to prove their innocence and if not satisfied with the final order to be passed by the learned trial Court, they shall have a right of filing appeal under the law. In Khawaja Fazal Karim v. The State PLD 1976 SC 461 and Ghulam Sadiq and another v. Mukhtiar Ahmad and others 1984 SCM R 14.46, the Honourable Supreme Court upheld the view that the existence of other remedy available to secure complete and proper justice, exercise of inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice would not be called for.
8. For what has been discussed above, there is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.