2017 P Cr (PLP)

SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.

The petitioner along with sixteen (16) others, including three police officials, was involved in FIR No.454/15, dated 24.11.2015, under sections 344, 379, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Bahlak, District Faisalabad on the complaint of Qaiser Abbas advocate (respondent No.4). The police found the alleged occurrence false and prepared a cancellation report, which has not been concurred with by the learned area magistrate, vide order dated 20.4.2016. Hence, the instant petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly argued that respondent Qaiser Abbas advocate got lodged a conspiratorial FIR-case to save murderers of father of the petitioner, who had been named through supplementary statement of the petitioner, being complainant of FIR No.247/2015, dated 8.8.2015, under section 302/34, P.P.C., Police Station Satiana (Faisalabad), which was primarily registered against three unknown persons; the impugned order passed by the learned area magistrate is nothing but gratuitous in nature, as it was not based on any rationale or legal argument; Qaiser Abbas advocate (respondent No.4) failed to produce any evidence during the course of investigation, leaving no space for the investigating officer, but to hold the case false and prepare a cancellation report in relation thereto, which could not lawfully be dealt with by the learned area magistrate and he passed the impugned order mindlessly; learned trial court showed undue haste in summoning the petitioner and others and unjustly issued their non-bailable warrants of arrest without any cogent reason; the petitioner and his co-accused have been badly effected by the impugned order, which may be set aside forthwith; the petitioner has no other alternate/adequate and efficacious remedy, but to press this petition so as to seek quashment of the impugned order.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned order, it is observed that the petitioner along with sixteen (16) others are involved in a criminal case, particulars given as above. Admittedly, a learned magistrate has taken cognizance of the case against them and issued their non-bailable warrants of arrest for the next date of hearing, after it failed to procure their presence through issuance of summons and bailable warrants of arrest. The stage of looking at the impugned order inquisitively has gone far behind and it is high time for the petitioner to look into the probability of moving the learned trial court under section 249-A, Cr.P.C, if advisable. The petitioner's case cannot escape the ratio of Muhammad Alam and another v. Additional Secretary to Government of N.W.F.P., Home and Tribal Affairs Department and others PLD 1987 SC 103, in view of the admitted position, that cognizance has already been taken by the learned magistrate. Maintainability of the instant petition, thus, looked a far-fetched idea.

4. Learned counsel's contention that no other adequate remedy provided by the law is available to the petitioner, is without any substance as constitutional jurisdiction of this court is not meant to supersede or make it redundant, the alternate remedy(-ies), provided by the law. The constitutional jurisdiction of this court is not meant as an alternate jurisdiction. The accused person has a right to demand his discharge or acquittal, as the case may be, during the course of the judicial proceedings/trial, being held for certain allegations by praying that the charge being not framable, he should be discharged and at a later stage, he may pray for acquittal either under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. or under section 265-K, Cr.P.C., as the case may be. In presence of such a number of remedies, how could it be argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner hasn't had any adequate or alternate remedy, available to him. The petitioner has not sought bail as yet in the above-said FIR-case and roamed about hither and thither, clearly running the risk of being declared an absconder by the trial court in near future.

5. It is held that cognizance having been taken by the learned magistrate in this case, the impugned order, which related to a negative police report, cannot be interfered with by this court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction and powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.

6. Therefore, this petition in dismissed in limine. WA/N-45/L Petition dismissed.