' This petition is moved under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code for the quashment of an order, dated 15-11-1996 passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Illaqa Magistrate, Gujjar Khan, District Rawalpindi, whereby the case registered against respondent No,2 vide F.I.R. No,219 of 1995 at Police Station Jatli, was directed to be cancelled.
2. The brief facts leading to the institution of this petition are that the petitioner made an application before the Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Rawalpindi, on 22-6-1995 against respondent No,2 alleging therein that the latter was never appointed as Lambardar of Village Punjgran. But had been acting as such without any lawful authority It was further alleged that the aforesaid respondent had attested certain documents as Lambardar of the village which were later on found to be false and forged, and that due to the impersonation practised by respondent No,2, public at large had suffered.
3. The Deputy Commissioner ordered an inquiry which resulted into the registration of the aforesaid case against respondent No,2. However, the aforesaid respondent, later on, moved an application (Annexure "B") before the Assistant Commissioner, Gujjar Khan, wherein he contended that he had committed no offence because he had been working as "Sarbrah" Lambardar after the demise of his father and his elder brother. He also contended that he was condemned unheard and that the case was totally false. The Assistant Commissioner after hearing both the parties made the impugned order in which he came to the conclusion that the case against respondent No,2 under section 419, P.P.C. Was not sustainable in the eyes of law because there was no mala fide on his part nor mens rea was proved against him that he acted dishonestly or fraudulently as Sarbrah Lambardar. In this respect, it was observed by the Assistant Commissioner that the respondent was the son of a deceased Lambardar and after the demise of his elder brother, he started acting as Sarbrah Lambardar and in that capacity. He had been collecting the land revenue which he deposited in the Government treasury. Some entries, were relied upon regarding such deposits. In that way, the Assistant Commissioner/Illaqa Magistrate came to the conclusion that no offence was made out as respondent No,2 had acted with bona fide. Consequently, the impugned order was passed whereby the cancellation of the case was directed.
4. In pursuance of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the police, which was investigating the case, made an entry in the case-diary on 22-11-1995 whereby the impugned order was taken into consideration and a 'report for the cancellation of the case was prepared.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since a case was registered against respondent No,2, therefore, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to interfere with the investigation of such case nor he could direct cancellation of the case on the basis that no offence was made out against the respondent aforesaid. It was, therefore, urged that the impugned order amounted to misuse of the process of law and as such was liable to be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, stated that the Assistant Commissioner had made the impugned order after hearing both the parties and as such the same would fall within the ambit of section 249-A, Cr.P.C. As such, there will be no misuse of the leg& process as claimed in the abashment petition.
7. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that the provisions contained in section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Deal with the inherent power of the High. Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order passed under the Criminal Procedure Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is to be seen, whether in the instant case any ground has been made out to use the inherent powers of this Court. The facts stated above will show that a case was directed to be registered against respondent No,2, but on his application before the Assistant Commissioner, who was also an Illaqa Magistrate, it was decided after hearing both the parties that since there was no menswear, therefore, the case was liable to be cancelled. Although, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is not happily worded, but in fact such an order would fall within the ambit of section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Which gives ample powers to a Magistrate to acquit any accused at any stage of the case if it is considered that the charge against him was groundless. In the instant case, the Magistrate had, in fact, invoked the powers contained in section 249-A, Cr.P.C. As he was led to the conclusion after hearing the parties that the case against respondent No,2 was not sustainable in the eyes of law. As such, instead of recording an acquittal order, he made an order regarding cancellation of the case. However, it is to be seen, whether the order passed by the Magistrate amounted to the abuse of process of Court or otherwise it was against the ends of justice. Needless to say that it is the duty of any Court to see that the justice is done. In the instant case, the Magistrate came to the conclusion that since there was no menswear for the commission of the crime and that respondent No,2 had acted in a bona fide manner, therefore, his prosecution would be uncalled for under the given circumstances. The decision given by the Magistrate does not suffer from any patent illegality nor it is passed in derogation of the canons of justice. As such, the impugned order does not call for interference by this Court under its inherent jurisdiction. Needless to say that commission or omission made by respondent No,2 may have a separate legal remedy against him.
8. The petition being meritless is dismissed with the above observations.
Petition dismissed.