1. ' Through this Criminal Miscellaneous Application the applicants have sought following relief:--- "It is, therefore, prayed that this Honourable Court be pleased to call for the R&P of the Case No,61 of 1997 from the Court to Civil Judge and F.C.M. Tando Muhammad Khan and after hearing the counsel of the applicants and perusal of the record quash the same in the interest of justice."
2. ' The brief facts of the case as stated in the application are that applicants Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife. Again, it is stated that applicant No,2 is the brother of applicant No,1, while the other applicants are their relatives. On or about 6-2-1996 the minor daughter of applicant No,3 was kidnapped by one Noor Muhammad, his wife Hajra and one Asghar along with their companions.
3. Noor Muhammad, Hajra and Asghar were arrested on the basis of F.I.R. No,10 of 1996, lodged by applicant No,3 at Mobina Town Police Station, Karachi. The culprits left the minor girl of applicant No,3 near Edhi Home. After usual investigation the police had sent up the case, which is sub judice before the Court of learned VIIIth Additional District Judge, Karachi (East) being S.O.No,70 of 1996.
4. ' It is further stated that on the arrest of Noor Muhammad and Mst. Hajra the respondent No,2 got very much annoyed. The respondent No,2, therefore, lodged F.I.R. 28 of 1996, under sections 363 and 34, P.P.C. At Police Station Tando Muhammad Khan on 17-3-1996 wherein he stated that he is labourer and about 5 years back his son Khan Muhammad had kidnapped the daughter of his caste bellow Muhammad Hussain applicant No,4 and that dispute was privately settled. The kidnapee was restored to her parents and Rs, 3,000 were also paid to them. On 17-3-1996 respondent No,2, his wife Hajra, his niece Amna and his grand daughter Fatima went to hospital for treatment as all of them were not well. At about 4'0 Clock when they reached at the hospital of Dr. Raman they were informed that he had expired, they, therefore, went to the hospital of Dr. Nasim.
5. He was not present. They were informed that Dr. Nasim would come at about 7-00 p.m. In order to pass time they went to the house of their friend Moosa situated near General Bus Stand Tando Muhammad Khan. At about 7-00 p.m. They proceeded towards the hospital of Dr. Nasim. Doctor administered drip to Mst. Amina and gave them medicines. Thereafter, they left the hospital and proceeded towards the house of Moosa in order to pass night.
6. ' At about 9-00 p.m. When they reached near General Bus Stand they found one Red Colour Datsun parked there wherein Muhammad Hussain, Ghai, Juma, Shafi, Shakoor, Yousuf and Mst. Halima were sitting. On seeing the complainant party they stepped down from the vehicle and forcibly kidnapped Mst. Fatima granddaughter of respondent No,2 aged about 8 years. The complainant went in search of kidnapped but he could not get any clue and on the next morning at about 8-15 a.m. He lodged such report.
7. ' It is stated that during the course of investigation the case was proved false. The present report was lodged in retaliation to the case instituted by the applicant party and it is out come of enmity.
8. The notice was issued to the respondent No,2 but the report of process server which is received shows that he has expired.
9. ' I have heard Mrs. Salima Nasiruddin learned counsel for the applicant/accused as well as Mr. Muhammad Saleh Panhwar learned counsel on behalf of A.-G. For the State. Latter has vehemently opposed the prayer made herein.
10. ' The perusal of record shows that the applicant moved this Court for the quashment of F.I.R.
11. Through C.P. No,59 of 1997 but it was not allowed.
12. ' Since police was reluctant to challan the case of respondent No,2 complainant, he filed C.P. No,223 of 1996 before Circuit Bench at Hyderabad where the State counsel made a statement that the charge-sheet would be submitted before 5-9-1996. Accordingly the charge-sheet was submitted by the police before the learned Civil Judge and F.C.M. Muhammad Khan showing the applicants/ accused absconders.
13. ' The applicants/accused did not appear before the Trial Court, therefore, non-bailable warrants were issued against them.
14. The applicants/accused have neither appeared before the Trial Court nor approached it under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Or 265-K, Cr.P.C. As the case may be, but have directly filed the present application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., for the quashment of proceedings. The jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is not an additional or alternate jurisdiction and when alternate remedy is available then application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., cannot be entertained. The, inherent powers of High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Though very wide but they are not supposed to be exercised to override the express provisions of law. The jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., can be invoked to quash proceedings very sparingly in exceptional cases where the trial of an accused tantamounts to unnecessary harassment or where no other alternate or adequate remedy is provided by law.
15. ' In case of A. Habib Ahmed v. M.K. Alias Scott Christian and 5 others reported in PLD 1992 SC 353, it was observed that if prima facie the offence had been committed the ordinary course of trial before the Court was not to be allowed to be deflected by approach to special revision or inherent jurisdiction of High Court.
16. ' In yet another case of Sheikh Mehmood Saeed and others v. Amin Nawaz Khan and others reported in 1996 SCM R 839 Honourable Supreme Court has laid down the dicta that every case should be allowed to proceed according to law and resort to the provisions of section 561-A, Cr.P.C., should not be made lightly as the same would tend to circumvent the due process of law.
17. Merely because the Investigating Officer was of the opinion that case was false and he was reluctant to produce the challan or enmity existed between the parties is no ground for the quashment of proceedings more so when the applicants/accused did not appear before the Trial Court in response to the process issued by it. The fugitive from law loses the normal rights which are granted by procedural or substantive law.
18. The upshot of the above discussion is that application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C, is premature, hence it merits no consideration and it is accordingly dismissed along with listed application. The interim orders earlier passed in above matter by this Court are hereby recalled.