1. ' Present petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Has been filed with a prayer to quash the Sessions Case No, 396 of 1998 State v. Shafiq Ahmed and others under sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 307 and 324, P.P.C., pending trial before the Court of learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi (East).
2. 'Prosecution case briefly stated is that on 17-5-1996 at 3-30 hours, S.-I. Majeed Abbas, S.H.O. Of Police Station Ferozabad, received spy information that the accused Shafiq Kamran and others involved in Crime No,206 of 1996 were available in Bungalow No,A-58. When they reached the said bungalow, he and his party members had an encounter with the accused in the case some of whom, namely, accused Shafiq Ahmed with a T.T. Pistol, Aamir Ahmed with repeater gun, accused Atif, accused Tariq Mahmood and accused Salman Anis were arrested on the spot whereas the accused Kamran and Jehanzeb escaped while firing at the police party and are absconding since then. The police party also secured a car from inside the bungalow and further secured two forged number plates from its dickey.
3. ' At the conclusion of the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against all the accused who are facing trial as aforesaid.
4. ' I have heard Mr. Suleman Habibullah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jawed Akhtar, Advocate for State.
5. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the present petitioner is not the one named in the F.I.R. None in the encounter is alleged to have received an injury and no empty was found from the place of incident. The prosecution has miserably failed to produce witnesses before the Court to prove their case in spite of the fact that three years have elapsed. He has lastly urged that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and that he is suffering the order of trial since last three years and that amounts to abuse of the process of Court and that the order of the learned trial Court under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Is erroneous, He has placed reliance on 1988 PCr.LJ 1004, 1992 PCr.LJ 2054 and 1997 PCr.LJ 1974.
6. ' Learned counsel for the State has strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner.
7. ' The case law cited in support of the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant would not be applicable on the grounds that the facts and circumstances of each of the above referred cases are different from the case in hand.
8. No doubt, this Court can quash the proceedings/orders which are without jurisdiction, coram non judice, mala fide and/or where the Court is of the opinion that the continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court. It is not shown that the proceedings pending against the applicant and the co-accused have been malafidely filed or the Court has no jurisdiction and the same would result as coram non judice. The inherent powers vested in this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Are preserved to meet a lacunae in the Code.
9. ' No doubt an application under Section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Can be filed at any stage of the case and even before framing of the charge. But it is difficult, at this stage, to arrive at a conclusion that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence.
10. ' In the instant case, the learned counsel has not been able to make out that continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner would amount C to abuse of the process of the Court or that quashment of the case would secure the ends of justice.
11. ' Relying upon case-law reported as,
(1) PLD 1997 SC 275 Muhammad Mukhtar Khalid v. The State, and,
(2) 1973 SCM R 622 Shaikh Muhammad Yamin v. The State I had dismissed the above petition vide a short order dated 29-6-1999 and these are the reasons for the same.