' This petition is moved under section 561-A, Cr.P.0 for the quashment of proceedings in the Court below initiated on the basis of F.I.R. No,393/97 registered at police station, Jaranwala, for an offence under section 379, P.P.C.
2. According to F.I.R. a buffalo of the complainant was stolen during the night on 3-9-1996, when it was tied outside in front of his house. The complainant suspected the present petitioners to have stolen the aforesaid buffalo for which he managed to call them at the Dera of the Lamberdar namely ' Mukhtar Ahmad in presence of Muhammad Shafi and Rahim Bakhsh P.Ws. After some reluctance the petitioners/accused admitted that they had stolen the buffalo in front of the assemblage. They promised to return the stolen buffalo within three days. However, they did not return the same, and were putting off the matter on one pretext or the other till the complainant was constrained to make a report to the police on 7-5-1997 on basis of which the present F.I.R. Was registered.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the F.I.R. Is totally false and mis- conceived. He has further submitted that the trial on the basis of such an F.I.R. Would amount to mis-carriage of justice and as such is liable to be quashed.
4. Before coming for the quashment of F.I.R, in this Court, the petitioners had instituted writ petition No,11951/97 in which the same F.I.R. Was challenged with the prayer that the petitioners may not be harassed during the investigation. However, during pendency of that writ petition, investigation was finalised and challan was sent to the Court concerned. The petitioners moved an application under section 249-A Cr.P.C'. Before the learned trial Court, which was dismissed on 13-6-1998 vide the impugned order. It is contended that after the dismissal of petition under section 249-A Cr.P.C' the petitioners had challenged that impugned order dated 13-6-1998 before the learned Additional ' Sessions Judge, Faisalabad Camp at Jaranwala, but their petition was dismissed vide his order dated 10-7-1998.
5. It is contended that both the Courts below failed to appreciate the facts of the case and passed erroneous orders by dismissing the petition under section 249-A, Cr.P.C'.
6. I have taken into consideration the arguments addressed at the Bar and have also gone through, the impugned orders, which do not suffer from any illegality so as to call of interference under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C'. The F.I.R. In question was properly investigated and the police found the petitioners guilty and sent them to the Court concerned for trial on the basis of the evidence shown in the calendar of witnesses. The members of punchayat mentioned in the F.I.R. Have been cited as witnesses of the case in the calendar of witnesses as they had supported the case of the complainant in their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C'. As such it cannot be said at this stage that the case of the complainant was false or that the F.I.R. Was mis-conceived. This petition being meritless is dismissed in limine.