Mst. Perveen Akhtar and his son Kamran Khan, the petitioners have filed this criminal miscellaneous application under Section 561-A of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the proceedings in a case FIR No, 384 dated 2nd of August 2002 under Section 338-A(B), 506/34 PPC, Police Station R.A. Bazar, Rawalpindi.
2. The challan in the case was sent by the police before the Ilaqa Magistrate and the trial has commenced and the case is being tried by Magistrate Section 30, Rawalpindi wherein the petitioners are accused. Calendar of witnesses shows that there are eight witnesses out of which two witnesses i,e, the victim and Mst. Rukhsana Jabeen and the Medical Officer Dr. Masooma had been examined as PW-2 and Statements of other PWs is yet to be recorded. The petitioners submitted an application before the trial Court under Section 249-A of Cr.P.C. which was declined by the trial Court. The petitioner filed the present petition seeking the quashment of the proceedings.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that PW-1 and PW 2 were the main witnesses of the prosecution and all other witnesses are formal witnesses. According to him from the deposition made by PW-1 and PW-2 no case is made out against the petitioners. Next it is argued that the deposition of the PW-2, the victim is not corroborated by the version given by the doctor PW-1.
Further it was submitted that PW-2 has admitted that the District Nazim was instrumental in registration of the case. Further from the deposition of PW-1 and PW-2, it is clear that the petitioners were not responsible for the alleged abortion of the victim. He placed reliance on case Gulzar Hussain Shah vs. Ghulam Murtaza (PLD 1970 SC 335)..M.S. Khawaja vs. State (PLD 1965 SC 287) The State Vs. Gulzar Muhammad etc. (1998 SCMR 873), Muhammad Noor etc. vs. Member Board of Revenue (1991 SCMR 643) Syed Manzoor Hussain Shah vs. Syed Agha Hussain Naqvi etc., (1983 SCMR 775 & 778) Muhammad Saleem Khan vs. Mari Time Security Agency (PLD 1994 SC 486), Atta Ullah Khan vs. State (PLD 1966 Lah. 778), Khudija vs. State (PLD 1978 Kar. 348), Tauqeer Jahan vs. Asif Latif Bajwa (1994 SCMR 78), Muhammad Shafique etc. vs. Abdul Hayee etc. (1987 SCMR 1371), Abdul Ghani vs. Ali Hassan (PLD 1977 Lah. 375), Muhammad Ashraf vs. The SHO (2001 P.Cr. L.J. 31), Mst.
Sarwar Jan vs. Ayyub etc. (1995 SCMR 1679), Muhammad Idrees vs. State (2001 .P.Cr.L.J. 628), Haji Muhammad Abbas vs. Naila Tarranum Jamshaid (2001 P.Cr. L.J. 628), Mehraj Khan vs. Gull Ahmad (2000 SCMR 122), Mehmud-ul-Hassan vs. Imtiaz Khan (PLD 1963 (WP) Lah. 481), and Muhammad Khelid Mokhtar vs. State through D.G. FIA (PLD 1997 SC 275).
4. Representing the State, learned Assistant Advocate General has argued that there is no case for quashment of the proceedings and that inherent jurisdiction of this Court cannot be exercised as the petitioner has an alternate remedy for filing a revision petition under Sections 435/439 Cr.P.C.
He placed reliance on case Khawaja Fitz& Karim vs. The State (PLD 1976 SC 461).
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone though the record. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 561-A of Cr.P.C. is neither alternative nor additional. Its inherent jurisdiction available to be exercised is exercised to further the cause of justice. It is also a settled principle that inherent jurisdiction is really invoked and only in the interest of justice in the cases where no other remedies are available. In exercise of inherent jurisdiction the High Court exercises a restraint and is watchful that the provision is not used to obstruct or divert the ordinary course of criminal proceedings. In the instant case the trial is going on and the remaining evidence of the prosecution in yet to be recorded.. The statement of only two prosecution witnesses is recorded. The learned counsel for petitioner pointed out certain contradictions in the Statements of PW-1 and PW-2. He also quoted some extract from the deposition of the prosecution witnesses in his petition. But I am of the view that evaluation of the evidence on this juncture would not be proper and fair. Further reason is that if this Court draws any conclusion it would cause prejudice to the trial. Depending on the nature and circumstances of the case, the Courts have relied on the solitary statement of the victim, provided it was a confidence inspiring deposition. There is a marked difference in a conclusion drawn from the appreciation of evidence and the inferences concluded that the no case is made out on the face of it or the case is that of an abuse of process of law. If the case falls within the first category, it certainly would not be a case for quashment of the proceedings.
6. In the instant case, the learned counsel based his entire arguments on appreciation of the arguments, which is not warranted in the midst of the trial. Accordingly, I do not find any substance in the petition. Resultantly, the same is dismissed.