' 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 F.I.R. No. 384, dated 2nd of August, 2002 under sections 338-A(B), 506/34, P.P.C., 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 P.W.2 and statements of other P.Ws. 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 P.W.1 and P.W.2 were the main witnesses of the prosecution and all other witnesses are formal witnesses. According to him from the deposition made by P.W.1 and P.W.2 no case is made out against the petitioners. Next it is argued that the deposition of the P.W.2, the victim is not corroborated by the version given by the doctor P.W.1.
Further it was submitted that P.W.2 has admitted that the District Nazim was instrumental in registration of the case. Further from the deposition of P.W.1 and P.W.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 v. Ghulam Murtyza PLD 1970 SCp35, M.S. Khawja v. State PLD 1965 SC 287, The State v.
Gulzar Muhammad and others 1998 SCMR 873, Muhammad Noor and others v. Member Board of Revenue 1991 SCMR 643, Syed Manzoor Hussain Shah v. Syed Agha Hussain Naqvi and others 1983 SCMR 775 and 778, Muhammad Saleem Khan v. Mari Time Security Agency PLD 1994 SC 486. Ata Ullah Khan v. State PLD 1966 Lah. 778, Khudija v. State PLD 1978 Kar. 348, Tauqeer Jahan v. Asif Latif Bajwa 1994 SCMR 78, Muhammad Shafique and others v. Abdul Hayee and others 1987 SCMR 1371, Abdul Ghani v. Ali Hassan PLD 1977 Lah. 375, Muhammad Ashraf v. The S.H.O. 2001 PCr.LJ 3 1 . Mst.
Sarwar Jan v. Ayyub and others 1995 SCMR 1679, Muhammad Idrees v. State 2001 PCr.LJ 628, Haji Muhammad Abbas v. Naila Tarranum Jamshaid 2001 PCr.LJ 628, Mehraj Khan v. Gull Ahmad 2000 SCMR 122, Mehmud ul Hassan v. Imtiaz Khan PLD 1963 (W.P) Lah. 481 and Muhammad Khalid Mokhtar v. State through D.G., HA 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 Khawja Fazal Karim v. The State PLD 1976 SC 461.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through 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 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 is yet to be recorded. The statement of only two prosecution witnesses is recorded. The learned counsel for petitioner pointed out certain contradiction in the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.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 coluded that 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 A dismissed.