Shah Behram etc vs District Police Officer etc

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, D.I.KHAN BENCH

FORM OF ORDER SHEET

Date of Order or other proceedings with signature of Judge(s). order or proceedings

18.11.2014. Cr.MQ No.125-D/2014 with Cr.Misc.No.126-D/2014.

Present: Muhammad Imran Khan Gandapur, Advocate for the petitioners.

IKRAMULLAH KHAN, J.- By this Criminal Miscellaneous application under section 561-A Cr.P.C, the petitioners have sought quashment of case FIR No.181 dated 16.10.2014 registered against them on the report of respondent No.4 under sections 506/447/380 PPC at police station Daraban, District D.I.Khan.

2.In essence, the complainant made a written complaint to highups of the police on 10.8.2014, complaining that petitioners trespassed over his land and when they were restrained from their illegal act, they criminally intimidated him with dire consequence of killing the complainant when all of them were equipped with deadly weapons. The application of respondent No.2 was entered in daily diary No.10 dated 10.8.2014 and inquiry under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C was initiated.

On the completion of inquiry the same was sent to the District Public Prosecutor, D.I.Khan for opinion and on the opinion of District Public Prosecutor, D.I.Khan, the instant F.I.R was chalked out.

3.In light of bare reading of the petition, being filed under section 561 A Cr.P.C, and the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioners, it has been prayed that case FIR No.181 dated 16.10.2014 under sections 506/447/427/380 PPC registered against the petitioners be quashed.

4.Without adverting to the merit of the case and the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this petition, it would not be out of context to reproduce the provision of section 561-A Cr.P.C, which reads as:-

“Saving of inherit power of High Court... Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

5.It is settled principle that High Court could exercise its inherent powers as saved thereunder section 561-A Cr.P.C to prevent the

abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice but this Court could not assume the role of an investigator to give its findings on facts, which require evidence for its proof or disproof. The police under the provision of section 154 Cr.P.C is bound to register a criminal case, if any cognizable offence is committed, without any prior inquiry or investigation in this regard the local police then in view of section 156 Cr.P.C has to investigate the case and if sufficient evidence is collected, has to forward the accused in terms of section 173 Cr.P.C for trial before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The Magistrate, has also conferred with the powers to discharge the accused in terms of section 63 Cr.P.C and thereafter, framing of charge may acquit the accused being found innocent there under section 249-A Cr.P.C, same jurisdiction would also be exercised by a court of Sessions there under section 265-K Cr.P.C. At the conclusion of trial the court of Magistrate or the Sessions, as the case may be, could acquit accused, being found not guilty for the charges, for which he had tried. But no jurisdiction could be exercised by this court to deviate therefrom the normal procedure provided in the

Code. Inherent powers as envisaged under section 561-A Cr.P.C could not be used to circumvent the normal procedure, as provided under the Code for redressal of grievance of an accused consider himself innocent.

6.The Code has also provided a remedy of appeal, revision and even the constitutional jurisdiction of this court could also be invoked if the required grievance is not redressed by the trial or Court of appeal etc, but without conclusion of investigation or the required trial as the case may be, is not the requirement of law, justice and even equity to knock out a complainant without giving him the opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his allegation of the commission of a cognizable offence.

7.Such powers could be exercised

sparingly and in extra ordinary circumstances in the interest of justice and to check abuse of process of law but it is never meant to stipple the prosecution case so as to interrupt or divest course of Criminal Procedure Code, as laid down in the procedural statute.

8.In case in hand, serious allegations had

levelled against the petitioners, which could not be negated at this stage without proper approach to the laid down procedure of Criminal Procedure Code.

Mere allegation of false implication or of evidence being false, power under section 561-A Cr.P.C could not be exercised, where express provisions is made in the Code itself for a particular purpose, recourse cannot be made to this Court under section 561-A Cr.P.C in order to bypass not only the Courts having similar jurisdiction but also to circumvent the normal procedure as prescribed under the Code.

9.For the reasons given hereinabove, this petition being bereft of any merit is hereby dismissed in limine.

Announced.

Dt:18.11.2014.

Aftab/* JUDGE