' This is an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.0 and it assails the validity of the order passed by the Revisional Court dated 21-9-1994 dismissing the petitioner's revision petition and maintaining the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate dated 1-9-1994.
2. The facts, succinctly stated, leading to this application are: That Mst. Manzoor Mai, the mother of Ghulam Yasin/applicant No,2, was murdered on 22-4-1994 at about 1-30 p.m; that Ghulam Yasin lodged an information of that occurrence on the same date at Police Station Qaimpur. The case was investigated. Police found All Sher, Atta Muhammad and Dilawar Hussain sons of Khan Muhammad guilty of offence and so their case was sent to the Court of competent jurisdiction for trial. That case is pending adjudication before Mr. Ehsan Ahmad, Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur. On 17-7-1994, Mst: Taj Bibi/mother of aforesaid All Sher, Atta Muhammad and Dilawar Hussain, lodged a complaint under section 337-A(i)(ii) against the applicants/alleging therein that on 22-4-1994, the applicants had belaboured her son Abdur Razaq, caused him injuries and when she went to his rescue, she was also physically beaten; that the aforesaid occurrence was witnessed by one Sajawal and Muhammad Qasim. The learned Magistrate 1st Class, Khairpur recorded the statement of the complainant and thereafter sent the case for further inquiry to Magistrate Second Class, Khairpur. The Inquiry Magistrate recorded the statements of two eye witnesses named above and sent his report by holding that there were circumstances on record which prima fade connected applicants with commissions of offence under section 337-A (i) P.P.C.
On perusal of this report and after taking into consideration the statement of the complainant, the learned trial Magistrate issued process calling upon the applicants to appear before him and face the trial. Feeling dissatisfied, the applicants preferred a revision petition which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur vide Order dated 21-91994. Still feeling aggrieved, the applicants have come to this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
3. In order to support the application, the learned counsel for the applicants raised two points; firstly, that the complainant was, as a matter of fact, a counter blast to session case and aimed to harass the applicants, who were eye witnesses in murder trial. Secondly, that the learned trial Magistrate had neither recorded the statement of the complainant nor the inquiry Magistrate had written the statements of the P.Ws. With his own hands; that both these officers relied upon the statements written down by their clerks and so, the proceedings from commencement to finish, were violative of rule laid down in section 355, Cr.P.C. Reliance was placed on Ghulam Abbas v.
Inayatullah and another PLD 1976 Lah. 1555, Munshi Ahmad v. Abdul Hannan 1987 PCr.LJ 2499, Muhammad Shafique v. Abdul Hamid 1992 PCr.LJ 229, Imdad All alias Imdad v. State 1992 PCr.LJ 949 and Muhammad Ali Kazi v. State 1994 PCr.LJ 430.
4. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mst. Taj Bibi, fiercely contested this application. In order to meet the points raised by the learned counsel for the applicants, he argued that the learned trial Magistrate as well as the learned inquiry Magistrate, in their parawise comments have denied the allegations levelled by the applicants and so this objection had become wholly irrelevant. He further submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.0 was extra-ordinary and could not be utilised to stiffle the criminal proceedings in infancy and deflect normal course of the dispensation of criminal justice. Strength was sought from Abdul Karim v.
Noor Muhammad 1990 M LD 2073, Nazir Ahmad v. State 1990 M LD 2084 and Anwar All Khan v. Wahid Bux 1991 SCM R 1608. Secondly; it was represented that the applicants had an alternative remedy of moving under section 249-A, Cr.P.C, before the learned trial Magistrate and so the applicants have no right to claim remedy under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Reference was made to Loung Khan v.
Muhammad Jumman 1982 PCr.LJ 1039. Lastly, it was contended that section 355, Cr.P.0 was not applicable to the inquiry proceedings under section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, carefully attended to their rival contentions and perused the reports furnished by the Trial Magistrate and enquiry Magistrate. The learned trial Magistrate as well as the inquiry Magistrate had fully flatly denied the allegations that they had not recorded the statements of P.Ws. In their own hand writing and had allowed their clerks to do so. This being the position, I have no reason to disagree with their assertions. The contentions of the learned counsel for the applicants, on the basis of violation of section 355, Cr.P.C., so pales into insignificance and I do not feel necessity to examine it any more.
6. As regards the second contention, it has force, it is now well settled that the jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.0 is neither akin to appellate jurisdiction nor to Revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is special, extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction. Its main aim and object is to save the people from the agony of the abuse of the process of the Court and from fake and mock trials. If any authority is needed, reference may be made to Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan PLD 1967 SC 317. It will be useful to reproduce the following passage:- "The inherent jurisdiction given by the section 561-A is not an alternative jurisdiction or an additional jurisdiction but it is a jurisdiction preserved in the interest of justice to redress grievances for which no other procedure is available or has been provided by the Code itself. The power given by this section can certainly not be so untlised as to interrupt or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure as laid down in the procedural statute. The High Court, as has repeatedly been pointed out in a case where a competent Court has after examining the evidence adduced before it, come to the view that a prima facie case is disclose and has framed charges or summoned the accused to appear, unless it can be said that the charge on its face or the evidence even if believed, does not disclose any offence. This the High Court has not found in the present case but has merely proceeded on an arroneous conception that in a case where a complaint has been filed, the police has no jurisdiction to investigate into any other offence which comes to its notice in the course of investigation of the complaint, particularly, if the offence disclosed is of a noncognizable nature. The High Court itself has referred to a Full Bench authority of the Madras High Court where a contrary view was taken but has not quoted any other authority in support of its own view. We are in agreement with the views expressed by the Madras High Court for, we can see no legal bar to the police submitting a challan in respect of offences other than those mentioned in the First Information Report, if the same should come to its notice during the course of the investigation on the basis of the complaint except in the cases mentioned in sections 196 to 199, Cr.P.C. Section 190(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly gives jurisdiction to the Magistrate mentioned therein to take cognizance of an offence on the basis of a police report whether the case be cognizable or non-cognizable. In the present case, the Magistrate was an Addl: District Magistrate and one of the offence in respect of which the challan was submitted, was under section 408, P.P.C., which was cognizable. Thus even the obstacle posed by section 155(2), Cr.P.0 did not stand in the way. The challan submitted by the police was, therefore, lawfully submitted and legally enquired into".
' This principle was applied in Muhammad Siddique v. Badar Munir 1993 SCM R 233 by the Supreme Court in following circumstances: On 13-3-1989 Mst. Badar Munir filed a complaint against Muhammad Siddique and others wherein she alleged that an F.I.R. No, 212/88 was registered against Nasir Ahmad alias Bhap under sections 436/307, P.P.C.; that the said person was in police custody on that date; that the complainant accompanied by her daughter Mst. Salma Sultana was also present there; that the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 15-3- 1989; that Nasir alias Bhap in police custody abused the complainant and her daughter; that the complainant and her daughter while on the way back to their house reached Bus-stop Saddar Chowk, Lahore Cantt and boarded the bus. In the meanwhile Nazir Ahmad, Manzoor Ahmad and Shabbir Ahmad followed them, entered the bus and pressed the complainant and her daughter to withdrawn their case but in vain. The above mentioned accused, therefore, extended threats but through the intervension of other passengers they were saved. When the bus reached the bus stand of Mustafa Abad, the Complainant and her daughter got down from the bus and were followed by the above mentioned accused. After a short time, the appellant Muhammad Siddique and Maqsood reached there and extended threats to the complainant and her daughter. On these facts, the complaint was lodged. The learned Magistrate recorded the evidence of the complainant and her daughter and issued non-bailable warrants against the aforesaid accused. In this background the accused filed a petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Which was rejected by the High Court. This led to Criminal Appeal No,224 of 1990. The Full Bench of the Supreme Court accepted the appeal to the extent of Muhammad Siddique in following words: "We have heard the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, the complainant and the State and have perused the record. From the nature of the complaint and the preliminary evidence recorded a prima facie case clearly stands made out against Nazir Ahmad, Muhammad Shabbir, Nasir Ahmad alias Bhap and Manzoor Ahmad appellants 3 to 6 and therefore, the question of quashing the complaint case against them does not arise. As regard the involvement of Muhammad Siddique and Maqsood Ahmad appellants Nos.1 and 2, the report of the Assistant Sub- Inspector of the police station suggests that appellants 1 and 2 being related to the other accused and assisting them in the defence of their case, their names have been included so that they may be disabled from assisting them. The certificate of the Superintendent, Civil Branch. Supreme Court, Rawalpindi, dated 5-4-1989 also shows that Muhammad, Siddique appellant No,1 was present in office at Rawalpindi on 1-3-1989 and remained on duty from 8-30 a.m. To 3-30 p.m. There are reasonable grounds to believe that Muhammad Siddique and Maqsood Ahmad appellants 1 and 2 have been falsely roped in. To prevent them from assisting the other appellants in the defence of the case. The complainant case against them deserves to be quashed."
7. Applying this principle to the facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite clear that on 22-4- 1994, Mst. Manzoor Mai/mother of the applicants, herein, was murdered at about 1-30 p.m; the first information report was lodged by Ghulam Yasin/applicant No,2 on that date in Police Station Qaimpur. It is further not in dispute that the Challan was sent up by the police in that, case is still pending adjudication before Mr. Ehsan Ahmad, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur.
It is also clear from the aforestated facts that the occurrence which is embodied in the complaint, occurred on 22-4-1994 and she lodged the complaint after a delay of about 3 months.
' The above chronology events speaks for themselves. Had in this occurrence an inch of truth, the complainant must have reported the matter promptly to the police authority/the trial Magistrate and the complainant could not be expected to wait for three months and after that period initiate the complaint. This aspect of the case was not kept in view by the Revisional Court. From the foregoing facts, I have no difficulty in forming an opinion that the complaint was lodged with an aim to harass and torture the applicants who are eye witnesses in Sessions Trial of their deceased mother and the complainant in this case was also the mother of the accused. This leads me to conclude that the aim and object of this complaint is to pressurise the applicants from prosecuting their cause before the learned Additional Sessions Court, before whom aforestated criminal trial is pending. As already remarked the principal object of section 561-A, Cr.P.0 is to save the parties from mock, vindictive and abusive trials. This principle is fully attracted to the facts and circumstances of present case and was applied by the Supreme Court in Muhammad Siddique v.
Badar Munir 1993 SCM R 233, Supra.
' In the light of foregoing discussion, I accept this quashment application, set aside the order passed by the Revisional Court and order of summoning applicant passed by trial Judge under section 337-A(i)(ii) of P.P.C., filed by Mst. Taj Bibi.