MUMTAZ ALI MIRZA, J.- Through the instant petition made under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. 1973 read with Section 561 - A Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek the quashment of FIR No. 55 dated 15-4-1997 registered at P.S. Jatli Tehsil Gujjar Khan District Rawalpindi under Section 10 read with Section I6 of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance. 1979.
2. The petition as made is founded on the ground that the case against the petitioners is ulteriorly motivated and actuated by bad faith and that the allegations forming the basis of the FIR are wholly false and fabricated and that no case whatever is made out against the petitioners from the contents of the FIR. A perusal of various contentions/assertions made in the petition would show' that the same essentially are based upon factual allegations, the veracity whereof cannot be determined without recording evidence, it is plain that this Court cannot embark upon an exercise of this nature in its constitutional jurisdiction. Viewed in this perspective, the petition as framed is incompetent and the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted.
3. The petitioners seek quashment of the FIR registered against them on the round that the case as alleged in the FIR is not made out. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the assertions of the petitioners are correct, even then no interference is called for by this Court as the relief being asked for by the petitioners ought in the first instance be sought from the learned T rial Court. This view of the matter which 1 lake. I am fortified by the enunciation of the law on the point by a preponderance of judicial pronouncements of various Courts.. Reliance in this behalf can be placed on 1998 P.Cr.L.J. 1423 (Abdul Jabbar v. The State). 1998. P.Cr.L.J. 1323 (Muhammad Ali. The State). 1990 P.Cr.L.J. 1209 (Zahid Hussain v. The State and S others). PLD 1980 Karachi 390 (F Bummel and 3 others v. The State). 1985 SCM R 257 (Mian Munir Ahmad v. The Stall) & 1979 SCM R 94 (Khushi Muhammad and J others v. The Stale).
4. It shall thus, be seen that the instant petition as framed and warded is wholly misconceived. The factual allegations made in the petition cannot be gone into nul their veracity established one way or the other without recording evidence. In any event, in view of the settled position of the law. The reliefs sought for by the petitioners are such as oblige the petitioners to first approach the learned Trial Court. They cannot file this petition straight-away in the High Court. The petitioners were themselves mindful of the legal position as to this and have for that very reason averred in para 11 of the petition that the reason why they could not approach the learned Trial Court was that the said Court was closed and account of summer vacation. The learned Trial Court having re-opened after summer vacation, the plea as raised in para 11 aforementioned of the petition is no longer open to them. This petition is accordingly dismissed as being wholly misconceived and legally incompetent before this Court.