MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI, J.- By this application under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C, applicant/petitioner seeks following relief:- "It is respectfully prayed in facts and circumstances that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit this petition and after hearing the parties to quash the criminal complaint No. 899/1997, pending before learned IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (East), and pass such order as may be deemed just in order to secure the ends of justice and to acquit the applicant."
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that complainant is settled in England. He and his family members are British Nationals. They are living in Karachi as well as in England. Complainant and accused Tahir Amin were close friends and complainant used to look after his interest in "London. Subsequently, relations between them became strange and they parted their was. In connivance with co-accused the accused Tahir Amin started harassing the complainant, in order to extort money from him. Complainant is also running a concern known as "Overseas Education Service" at Karachi. Accused Tahir Amin managed with CIA Police and got him arrested and implicated in a false case under Section 17(3) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979, relating to a car theft which was registered as Crime No. 341/91 at Police Station North Nazimabad, Karachi. During his custody with CIA Police a cheque of Rs. 35,000/0- was extorted from the complainant in the name of accused Tahir Amin which was encashed and his signatures were also obtained on plain papers. Subsequently, the complainant was let-of under Section 169, Cr.P.C. The accused Tahir Amin, however, continued threatening the complainant and his family on phone and through letters, with the result that complainant developed heart ailment due to shock and tension and he was admitted in Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, where a pace-maker was find in his heart. The complainant was also treated as London and he is still on medication.
3. The learned IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, (East) held preliminary enquiry brought the direct complaint on file and issued process against the applicant/accused and co-accused.
4. I have heard Mr. Zahid Hamid, the learned counsel for the applicant/accused and Mr. Jawed Akhtar, learned counsel for the State. The latter has opposed the quashment of proceedings and stated tha? Direction may be issued to the trial Court for early disposal of the case. I have perused the material placed on record.
5. The powers under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C, are extraordinary in nature and are to be exercised sparingly with utmost caution and not as a matter of routine. Interference under extra-ordinary jurisdiction is only justified when on the face of its gross injustice was done to a party and no other efficacious remedy is provided under law. The inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court is neither additional nor alternative.
6. The powers under Sections 265-K, 249-A and 561-A, Cr.P.C, are coextensive. Therefore, ordinarily remedy has to be sough} at lower level in the first place. It appears that application under Section 265-K, Cr.P.C, was moved before the trial Court and it was dismissed but a copy of such order is not find alongwith the present Cr. Misc. Application and it was not subsequently placed on record.
A
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the case is false and concocted one; that the whole story is absurd and it cannot be believed; that the police men are accomplice in the case but they did not figure as accused in the case and that the complaint was find after long delay. It was thus, submitted that the proceedings are liable to be quashed. These contentions are misconceived.
8. On receipt of complaint the trial Court recorded statement of the complainant under Section 200, Cr.P.C, and after holding preliminary enquiry as contemplated under Section 202, Cr.P.C, came to the conclusion that prima facie case we made-out and issued process under Section 204, Cr.P.C.
9. It is not the function of this Court to weigh, assess or evaluate the evidence of prosecution or defence under its extraordinary jurisdiction at this stage. The evaluation of evidence is function of the trial Court. However, if on the fact of it transpired that the case was find with an ulterior motive to drag the accused and to cause harassment to him, the Court can quash the said proceedings in order to secure the ends of justice. The delay in filing a direct complaint cannot be held to be a valid ground for the quashment of proceedings in every case. The question of delay and its consequent effect 6n prosecution case could only be considered and determined by the trial Court at the time after the prosecution witnesses are examined and cross-examined. As regards the police men, who were not joined as accused by complainant, they can be summoned by trial Court and after recording* evidence if it comes to the conclusion that prima facie complicity of the police men in commission of this offence was made-out. Thus, these are hardly the grounds for quashment of proceedings at this stage.
10. The upshot of the above discussion is that the prayer for quashment of proceedings made under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C, is premature and^the application is, therefore, dismissed.
11. The trial Court is, however, directed to complete the trial of this case within a period of six (6) months. It is open to th eapplecant if he so advised to file application under Section 265-K, Cr.P.C, after material evidence is recorded by the trial Court.
12. The observations made in this order are tentative in nature and the trial Court will proceed with the trial of this case uninfluenced by what has been observed herein above.