1. ' In the present application proceedings in respect of F.I.R. No,4 of 1992, registered at Police Station Bulri Shah Karim under section 379, P.P.C. Read with section 14, Hudood Ordinance pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Tando Muhammad Khan are sought to be quashed.
2. ' Brief facts as are reflecting in the F.I.R. Are as follows:-- "I am Hari of Muhammad Usman in Deh Hajipur. Darya Khan Machi and his father Majnu are also Haris with me. Muhammad Usman has obtained the land from Forest Department for five years on lease. There is no water supply from the river. Therefore, the water is being supplied to the lands through a machine and water pumps. About a week ago Darya Khan came to me in the village and informed me that he had gone at the pump machine at the land, but found the same missing.
3. He saw that accused Abdul Jabbar and Azizullah Muhammad and Nawaz were holding the machine, who seeing me ran inside the jungle. I went there and saw that only pump was lying there, but the machine was not there. I narrated the incident to my Zamindar Muhammad Usman.
4. Said Zamindar came there and accompanied me to the house of the accused, where they met Abdul Jabbar and Nawaz Ali, who were apprised about the machine and they said that the boys might have brought the machine and promised to return after enquiries from them. But, today, the accused refused saying that the machine is not with them. Then Zamindar Muhammad Usman directed me to lodge the report, hence this report."
5. ' Grounds on which the quashment has been sought are that the present prosecution is the consequential result of political victimization at the hands of the landlord having political standing, such as Syed Qamar Zaman Shah and Syed Naveed Qamar former M.N.A. And Chairman, Privatization Commission. It seems that there is long litigation between the parties and on account of dispute over landed property the applicants are stated to have been falsely broiled'in false criminal prosecution. Be that as it may, the learned State Counsel has invited my attention to a reported judgment Ghulam Muhammad v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 1304, wherein it has been laid down that before invoking the provision under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. It is required that in the first instance the applicants ought to have moved the learned trial Court under section 249-A, Cr.P.C.
6. And only in the event, the learned trial Court had refused relief to the applicant, could the applicant approach this Court under provision of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The intent and purpose of section 561- A, Cr.P.C. Are aimed at securing the end of justice and suppress the abuse of the process of Court.
7. From the record it seems that the learned trial Court has not been approached and therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that the process of the learned trial Court issued against the applicants is operating as an abuse of the process of Court. Resort to the provision of section 561- A, Cr.P.C. Without moving the learned trial Court could only be made in exceptional circumstances, which circumstances should be so germane to demonstrate on the face of the record that the proceedings in term a prosecution launched against the applicant are manifestly an abuse of the process of Court and in the event, if trial Court is still required to be moved in the first instances, the interest of justice would neither be secured and the process of the Court would be further abused.
8. Such is not in the instant case. Exercise of political influence, if any, is a question of fact, which cannot be gone into in the present proceedings without enabling the trial Court to record evidence.
9. In the said circumstances, the present application is dismissed on merits. However, it will be open to the applicant to move the learned trial Court in the first instance and then resort to the proceeding under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. While the applicant, approach the learned trial Court, it would have to be demonstrated by him that no offence is disclosed upon examining the record in its entirety or for that matter the proceedings are mala fidely motivated or without jurisdiction. The aforementioned observations are tentative in nature and are not required to come in the way of the learned trial Court, while adjudicating upon. Application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. It filed, by the applicant. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,72 of 1995 is dismissed.