1. ' SYED KHURSHID HYDER RIZVI, J.--- Applicants Sultan Mahmood and Muhammad Rahim have moved this application under section 561-A of Cr.P.C. For quashment of the criminal case which is outcome of F.I.R. No,23 of 1992 of Police Station Satellite Town, Mirpur Khas and is pending against them in Special Court, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Hyderabad.
2. ' Said F.I.R. Was directed against one Muhammad Ashraf. It was alleged in the F.I.R. That Muhammad Ashraf residing within jurisdiction of Satellite Town Police Station, Mirpur Khas and joined Jiay Sindh Movement in 1989 and since then he was propagating against the Government of Pakistan as well as Government of Sindh through public speeches, public meetings and processions. He raised the slogan of Azad Sindh (Sindhu Desh) and took practical steps to separate Sindh from Pakistan and making it an independent country. Muhammad Ashraf was elected in 1989 firstly as Joint Secretary and then as President of Jiay Sindh Organization, District Mirpur Khas. Activities of Muhammad Ashraf were detrimental to the solidarity of the country. For said reasons his custody was handed over in 1992 to Joint Investigation Team, Hyderabad for further interrogation and enquiry. Ultimately Muhammad Ashraf was challaned in the Special Court Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Hyderabad for the offences punishable under sections 153-A and 153-B of P.P.C. Read with sections 2 and 13 of Prevention of Anti-National Activities Act, 1974 and section 16 of the Maintenance of Public Order.
3. ' Satellite Town Police, Mirpur Khas submitted in the same Court a supplementary challan, dated 22-8-1992 against applicant Sultan Mahmood alias Mahmood Sultan and Muhammad Rahim for same offences showing them as absconders.
4. ' Allegations against the applicants as per the supplementary challan are that they were participators in the same crime with principal accused Muhammad Ashraf and that they alongwith M. Ashraf were working against the country and they according to their capacity had sufficiently worked to disintegrate Pakistan for the purpose of formation of Sindhu Desh. The two applicants are said to be workers of Jiay Sindh Party in which co-accused Ashraf was office-hearer. Jiay Sindh party is said to he a party, which is openly opposing Pakistan as a country and which is propagating against the same. The applicants are said to be criminal type of persons with Ashraf facing various criminal cases. The applicants are also facing criminal cases of Taluka Police Station, Mirpur Khas.
5. ' Mr. Muhammad Yousuf Leghari, learned counsel for the applicants argued that no case is made out against the applicants from perusal of the F.I.R. And that the trial Court has taken cognizance without prior sanction by the Government and that the applicants are involved on the basis of confession said to have been made by Muhammad Ashraf which was inadmissible in the evidence. It was also argued that witnesses shown in the supplementary challan had not supported the prosecution version. Learned counsel conceded that before moving this application, no application was moved in the trial Court under section 249-A of Cr.P.C. For acquittal.
6. ' Mr. Muhammad Sharif Leghari, Advocate for A.-G. Sindh for State, argued that precise nature of the evidence collected by police had not been brought on the record and that he had not received full instructions, as to, what was the exact evidence against the applicants. It may be mentioned here that section 561-A of Cr.P.C. Cannot be so utilized as to interrupt or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure as laid down in the procedural law, as observed in the case of Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan and others PLD 1967 SC 317. In the same case it was also held that the inherent jurisdiction should not normally be invoked where another remedy is available, because inherent powers arc preserved to meet a lacuna in the Criminal Procedure Code and in extraordinary cases and arc not intended for vesting the High Courts with powers to make any order which they consider to be in the interest of justice, as the inherent powers are as much controlled by the principles and precedents as are its express statutory powers. In the case of A.
7. Habib Ahmed v. M.K.G. Scott Christian and others PLD 1992 SC 353 a question arose as to whether the ordinary course of trial before the Court concerned should be allowed to be deflected through an approach to its special inherent jurisdiction. For resolving such question reference was made to the case of Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan and others PLD 1967 SC 317. place without first moving the trial Court for acquittal under section 249-A of Cr.P.C. Necessity to move the trial Court under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Arises in the cases where the F.I.R. Does not give complete picture about the evidence which has been collected against a person. If the F.I.R. Gives complete idea as to, what evidence has been collected against an accused and if the Court considers that even if such evidence is brought on record it would not result in conviction of accused, then such criminal proceedings are nothing but abuse of the process of Court inviting quashment. Where the F.I.R. Does not give such idea it would be proper for an accused seeking quashment to move the trial Court first, under section 249-A of Cr.P.C. In such a situation the trial Court can discuss the evidence which is likely to be brought against the accused seeking quashment.
8. ' In the instant case, the contents of the F.I.R. By themselves do not give picture about the evidence that has been collected against the applicants. It is not known if there is prima facie case against the applicants for the purpose of deflecting normal course of trial, by exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
9. ' In the circumstances, for the present no case is made out for quashment of the criminal case pending against the applicants and consequently their application is dismissed in limine. Such short order was passed by us on 9-2-1994 and these are the reasons for the same.