' Through this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The petitioner seeks quashment of order, dated 27-6-2002 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate and order passed in criminal revision, dated 22- 8-2002, by learned Sessions Judge, Bhakkar.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner alongwith others was nominated accused in case F.I.R. No,145 of 2000, dated 26-11-2000 under sections 379/411 read with section 14 of Offences Against Property (E.O.H.), Ordinance No, VI of 1979 registered at Police Station Mankera, District Bhakkar. During the investigation the petitioner alongwith his two co-accused was declared innocent and the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was submitted against the other accused.
According to the learned counsel for petitioner the case is pending for the last more than one year and the petitioner alongwith his co-accused was declared innocent. The learned Judicial Magistrate after recording the statement of Muhammad Ramzan has passed the impugned order, by which the petitioner has been directed to face the trial. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed revision petition which was also dismissed. Hence this petition.
2-A. The learned counsel for petitioner contends that the F.I.R. Has been lodged by incompetent person and while taking in view the conduct of petitioner that he donated 2 Kanals of land to the school it cannot be accepted that the petitioner has committed the theft from that school. It is further contended that the complainant has lodged the F.I.R.. Due to enmity against the petitioner as four criminal cases were got registered previous to involvement of petitioner in this case. It is further contended that the petitioner who was declared innocent could not be summoned to fact the trial.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner at length and perused the impugned orders and also the contents of this petition. The grounds taken by the learned counsel for petitioner for quashment of the proceedings in the criminal trial are not sufficient to exercise powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. There is no where mentioned in the provision of section 154, Cr.P.C. That the F.I.R. Could be lodged by the aggrieved and competent persons. Similarly the finding of the police about the petitioner is not binding upon the Courts and it is not relevant for the decision, in the criminal case. So, the contention that the case was registered with mala fide intention cannot be considered for quashment of the proceeding in a slipshod manner without affording an opportunity to the prosecution to prove its case against the petitioner. Even otherwise, the petitioner will have an opportunity of cross-examining the prosecution witnesses, if produced before the trial Court. The trial.Court can come to a definite conclusion only after recording the evidence of prosecution and petitioner can also prove his innocence before the trial Court by producing his evidence in rebuttal of the charges. In this view of the mater this petition has no merit. It is dismissed in limine.