' This petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is moved by the petitioner with the prayer that a case registered under sections 379, 448, 147, 148, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No,29/99, dated 21-1-1999 at Police Station, Ichhra, Lahore being mala fide be quashed as the same has been allegedly instituted with the object of harassing the petitioner and other co-accused cited in the F.I.R. In this regard, it is contended that the petitioner's father had rented out the disputed house to respondent No,2. After the death of her father, respondent aforesaid became tenant under the heirs of the deceased father of the petitioner including the petitioner by operation of law. The respondent No,2 allegedly vacated the house in question of his own on 30-11-1998 and handed over its possession to the petitioner and her other co-sharers. The petitioner started running a school with the name and style of 'Howard Campus' in the said building since 1-12-1998. A dispute had arisen when the respondent No,2 allegedly started illegally demanding Rs, 50,000 after vacating the house and threatened with dire consequences if the demand was not met with. The petitioner thereupon, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent No,2 and obtained restraining order from the Civil Court on 15-1-1999 directing that respondent aforesaid shall not interfere with the peaceful occupation and possession of the petitioner. However, in order to harass and humiliate the petitioner and her family members the F.I.R. Aforesaid was lodged and upon investigation, challan against the accused mentioned therein was sent to the Court of Magistrate concerned.
2. It is contended that offence under section 379, P.P.C. Has since been deleted during the investigation and offences under sections 448, 147 and 148, P.P.C. Are to be tried by the Judicial Magistrate where the case has been sent for trial, therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed or at least in the alternative be stayed as the subject-matter in civil litigation as well as in the criminal case is the same. Reliance was placed on Haji Abdul Khaliq and 8 others v. The State and another PLJ 1979 Cr.C. (Lahore) 354; Muhammad Amjad Ghori and another v. The State 1977 PCr.LJ 490; Abdul Haleem v. The State and others 1982 SCM R 988.
3. I have considered the foregoing submissions and have also gone through the facts of the case.
The dispute between the parties has arisen according to the petitioner, when she was put in peaceful possession by the respondent No,2 of the house in question. However, according to respondent No,2 he was dispossessed forcibly from the house in question in its absence by the petitioner and her co-accused, named in the F.I.R. Respondent No,2 also filed a suit in Civil Court for permanent injunction in which he prayed that decree for possession be granted to him as he was illegally dispossessed, after a criminal trespass was committed by the assailants named in the F.I.R.
As earlier stated a suit for permanent injunction was also filed by the present petitioner against respondent No,2 with the prayer that aforesaid respondent be restrained to interfere in her peaceful possession. Both the suits are pending in the Courts below. The criminal case based on the F.I.R. Aforesaid is also pending in the Court of Magistrate. It is submitted in this application that proceedings in the criminal 'case are liable to be quashed being mala fide and based on ill will and malice. In the alternative, it is stated that proceedings in the criminal case be stayed.
4. It is clear from the above facts that question of possession is involved in civil as well as in criminal case, but those proceedings have altogether different connotation. According to the petitioner she had obtained possession peacefully whereas according to respondent No,2, possession was obtained by trespassing into the premises and as such criminal action was committed. In such a situation, both the proceedings i,e, in the Civil Court and in the criminal case can proceed independently of each other and perhaps for that reason the learned Civil Judge while granting Stay Order to the petitioner in her suit observed that restraining order passed in the suit for permanent injunction against respondent No,2 shall not cause produce to any other legal proceedings, which showed that the stay order was confined only to the civil litigation and other lawful proceedings were not even allowed to be prejudiced, through the restraining order passed by the Civil Court. Even otherwise the inherent powers of the High Court contained in section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Are to be sparingly used, only with the object of preventing abuse of the process of any Court or in order to secure the ends of justice. There is nothing on record to show that there is any misuse of the process by the Criminal Court in the criminal case under reference. On the contrary cognizance was taken by the Court upon the report of the police made to it under section 173, Cr.P.C. Based on the investigation conducted by the Investigating Agency showing that prima facie case of criminal trespass was committed. As such it cannot be said at this stage that there is any misuse of procedure by the Court so as to call for interference by this Court in its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. It is well known that powers of the High Court being extraordinary in nature are to be exercised sparingly with utmost caution and not as a matter of routine. Such powers are to be invoked when on the face of it, gross injustice is done to party and no other efficacious or alternative remedy is provided to the aggrieved party under the law. It may also be pointed out that inherent jurisdiction vested in High Court is neither additional nor alternative, but being extraordinary in nature has no comparison with the power and remedy available to an aggrieved party under ordinary law. Normally the aggrieved party for quashment of proceedings has to invoke the jurisdiction at the lower level under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. If the charge is considered as groundless or the proceedings in the case are considered to be an exercise in futility. The powers vested under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Are co-extensive with the powers vested under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. And accordingly the remedy at the lower level should be first availed. Reference in this regard may usefully be made to Gulzar Ahmad Shaikh v. M.N. Salar and another reported as 1999 PCr.LJ 1154 (Karachi).
5. This petition being misconceived is dismissed in limine.