' Through the instant petition made under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C, the petitioners seek the abashment of F.I.R. No,55, dated 15-4-1997 registered at Police Station Jatli, Tehsil Gujjar Khan, District Rawalpindi under section 10 read with section 16 of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. The petition as made is founded on the ground that the case against the petitioners is ulterior motivated and actuated by bad faith and that the allegations forming the basis of the F.I.R. Are wholly false and fabricated and that no case whatever is made out against the petitioners from the contents of the F.I.R. 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 abashment of the F.I.R. Registered against them on the ground that the case as alleged in the F.I.R. 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 trial Court. This view of the matter which I take, 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 Abdul Jabbar v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 1423, Muhammad Ali v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 1323, Zahid Hussain v. The State and 8 others 1990 PCr.LJ 1209, F. Brummal and 3 others v. The State PLD 1986 Kar. 390, Mian Munir Ahmad v. The State 1985 SCM R 257 and Khushi Muhammad and 4 others v.
The State 1979 SCM R 94.
4. It shall, thus, be seen that the instant petition as framed and worded is wholly misconceived. The factual allegations made in the petition cannot be gone into and 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 obliging the petitioners to first approach the learned trial Court. They cannot file this petition straightaway 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 on account of summer vacation. The learned trial Court having reopened after summer vacation, the plea as raised in para. 11 aforementioned accordingly, dismissed as being wholly misconceived and legally incompetent before this Court.