1. ' This is an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Wherein applicant has prayed for quashment of proceedings in respect of Criminal Complaint filed by respondent No,2 Haji Abdul Latif Memon against the applicant Ashiq Hussain Thahim and another under sections 181, and 193, P.P.C. Which is pending for disposal in Court of learned Civil Judge and F.C.M. Kingiri, Pir Jo Goth, District Khairpur.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that applicant's daughter Dr. Farhana Naz was married to Abdul Aziz son of Haji Abdul Latif Memon, the respondent No,2, who died in Karachi on 13-7-1996 leaving behind moveable and immovable properties, which properties were allegedly taken over by the respondent No,2 to the exclusion of widow and.Minor children of deceased, consequently a Suit No,1260 of 1996 was filed by the said widow in this Court wherein respondent No,2 was ordered to deposit an amount received by him from PIA in the Court, meanwhile the applicant on the strength of legal heir certificate obtained from District Magistrate Karachi East applied to the Mukhtiarkar Kingiri for mutation of agricultural land admeasuring 2 Acres and 1-1/4 Guntas in the name of the widow of said deceased and two minor children which mutation was made accordingly, however, the respondent No,2 filed an appeal against the said entry of mutation in the Revenue Record which appeal was allowed and the names of respondent No,2 and his wife were allowed to be mutated in the Revenue Record. However, it is stated that respondent No,2 made an application to the Anti-Corruption Establishment Sukkur alleging therein that the applicant and others got the Khata changed by corrupt and illegal means which enquiry was entrusted to Sher Muhammad, Anti-Corruption Inspector Sukkur who at the instance of respondent No,2 started harassing the applicant on the basis of alleged false allegation, consequently a Writ Petition No,S-405 of 1997 was filed wherein the said Inspector Sher Muhammad appeared and made a statement that the applicant would not be harassed, accordingly petition was disposed of as not pressed. Respondent No,2 thereafter made an application to S.D.M. And Assistent Commissioner Khairpur for taking action against the applicant and respondent No,3 which application was forwarded to S.H.O. Police Station Pir Jo Goth for legal action, who after enquiry and investigation found the applicant and respondent No,3 to be innocent and refused to take any legal action. It is stated that complaint was again lodged by respondent No,2 before S.D.M. And Assistant Commissioner against the applicant who also refused to take action, thereafter respondent No,2 filed private complaint before learned Civil Judge and F.C.M. Kingiri who has issued bailable warrants against the applicant.
3. ' Heard learned counsel for applicant and State. None for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 has appeared though Mr. Aleem Akbar Sheikh filed power for respondent No,2.
4. ' Contention of learned counsel for applicant is that the complaint does not disclose any offence much less offence under section 181/193, P.P.C. And further the alleged two offences are those offences which are mentioned in section 195 (1)(a)(b), Cr.P.C. Which section provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under any section mentioned therein when such offences are alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceedings in any Court except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or to whom said public servant is subordinate or of the said Court or some other Court to which such Court is subordinate.
5. ' There is no cavil about the legal position in respect of taking cognizance of the offences falling under sections 181 and 193, P.P.C. That a Court would not take cognizance except as provided under section 195, Cr.P.C. However, the inherent jurisdiction as provided under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is not an alternative or an additional jurisdiction but it is a jurisdiction preserved in the interest of justice to redress wrong for which no other procedure is available or has been provided by the Code itself.
6. Normally every case is to be allowed to proceed according to law and resort to the provisions of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is not lightly made as it would tend to circumvent the due process of law. In the instant case, the applicant's learned counsel has neither mentioned nor stated that before approaching this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. If he has approached the trial Court under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Or before the Court of Sessions under section 439-A, Cr.P.C. relating to its criminal revisional jurisdiction for the redress for which he has approached this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The applicant should have approached the trial Court and thereafter, the Criminal Revisional Court if no relief was granted by the trial Court in the first instance under the Code of Criminal Procedure before approaching this Court directly which in the circumstances of case could not be said to be proper as it would amount to diverting and interrupting the ordinary course of Criminal Procedure. Reference may be made to Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammil Khan and four others (PLD 1967 SC 317 at 325) wherein the Supreme Court has observed:- "The inherent jurisdiction given by section 561-A, Cr.P.C. 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 utilized as to interrupt or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure as laid down in the procedural statute"
7. ' Reference may also be made to Muhammad Khalid Mukhtar v. The State through Deputy Director F.I.A. (PLD 1997 SC 275) and Sheikh Mehmood Saeed and others v. Ammer Nawaz Khan and another (1996 SCM R 839) on the point that this Court would be reluctant to quash proceedings under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Unless trial Court is approached for, that exercise of its powers under section 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. Which are incidentally at the same nature and in a way akin to and co- related with quashing of proceedings and that resort to the provisions of section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
8. Should not be lightly made, as the same would tend to circumvent the due process of law.
9. The appellant has by-passed the ordinary legal course available to him and provided under the Criminal Procedure Code and inherent powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Cannot be exercised as to interrupt and divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure. The applicant can agitate the same plea before the trial Court and Revisional Criminal Court. In the circumstances, this criminal miscellaneous application is incompetent which is hereby dismissed.