' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN, J.---Instant writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Seeking quashment of case F.I.R. No,272 registered with City Police Station, Mansehra on 2-3-2001 under section 405, P.P.C. At the instance of complainant Noor Muhammad, respondent No,7 herein.
2. Noor Muhammad, Zarab Gul respondents Nos.7 and 8 herein, deal in business of vehicles and on account of this business, an amount of Rs,20,59,000 is stated outstanding against Zarab Gul. Noor Muhammad having failed to secure return of the aforesaid amount, addressed an application to D.I.-G., Hazara Range, Abbottabad that Zarab Gul and petitioner Raza Shah are not prepared to discharge their liability and as such necessary action be taken against them. The application was marked to rosecution Branch and resultantly the F.I.R. Under reference was registered against Zarab Gul and petitioner Raza Shah.
3. Malik Muhammad Asif, Advocate for the petitioner contended before us that a perusal of the application addressed by respondent No,7 to D.I.-G. Police, Hazara Range, Abbottabad would reveal that dispute between Noor Muhammad and Zarab Gul concerning business of selling and purchasing of vehicles, is of civil nature having no relevance with criminal breach of trust and thus the F.I.Rs, is based on mala fides. The learned counsel added that respondent No,7 did not entrust any property or with any domain over such property nor there is any allegation or evidence dishonestly misappropriating or converting the same in his use and thus the petitioner cannot be charged for criminal breach of trust. We regret the submissions of the learned counsel are not sustainable. We find ourselves in agreement with Sardar Nasir Aslam Khan, Advocate for respondent No,7 that the dispute between the petitioner and respondents Nos.7 and 8 essentially relates to business in vehicles and matter is under process of investigation. The rights of the parties are intact and the petitioner should have had no grouse against registration of the case. The ground urged before us hardly furnishes a valid ground for the quashment of the proceedings.
Even otherwise, normally 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 lightly made, as this would tend to circumvent the due process of law. This was the principle laid down by the august Supreme Court in 'Ghulam Muhammad v. Muhammad Khan' (PLD 1967 SC 317). It is not denied that power vests in the High Court to quash criminal proceedings, if it is 'satisfied that a false case has been brought with mala fide intention and the process of Court is, therefore, being abused not to advance the cause of justice but to subject the adversary to unnecessary harassment. If an authority is needed on the point reference can be made to case reported in '1996 SCM R 186' captioned Ahmad Saeed v. The State and another, wherein it was observed that High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Could not quash the F.I.R. On the ground of mala fides or on the ground that it disclosed civil liability. The petition, as rightly urged, is premature. The same is non-maintainable. The petition fails which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.