2014 PLP 2632 (YLR)

ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI, J.

Through the instant petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., Tarah Dad Khan and 4 others petitioners, seek quashment of F.I.R. No.581 dated 17-11-2013, registered under section 365-B, P.P.C. at Police Station Mandan District Bannu.

2. Arguments heard and record perused.

3. In the F.I.R. in question, the petitioners have been directly charged by complainant Mst. Mehron Bibi for abduction/enticing her daughter Mst. Mina Bibi. According to her, on the night of occurrence she was present in her house along with her daughter Mst. Mina Bibi when at about 1800 hours, petitioners entered her house and forcibly abducted her daughter Mst. Mina Bibi who was already in the Nikah of one Adnan Khan.

4. Undisputedly, the case is still at investigation stage and no challan has yet been submitted. By now, it is settled law that the High Court does not interfere, during investigation to resolve the controversial questions of facts by exercising its inherent powers, as it is the sole job of the trial Court to decide the merits of the case, after recording evidence. The High Court, can only interfere when there is any illegality in the registration of the case or no offence is made out even if the allegations made in the complaint or F.I.R., are accepted to be true or the case is of no evidence at all and there is no probability of the accused being convicted of the offence. While in the instant case, there is no such circumstance which may warrant interference of this Court at investigation stage. In this regard reliance can be placed on case titled, Rana Shahid Ahmad Khan's case (2011 SCMR 1937 and case titled Dr. Sher Afgan Khan Niazi v. Ali S.Habib and others (2011 SCMR 1813). The powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. can certainly not be so utilized as to interrupt or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure as laid down in the procedural statue and the High Court, as has repeatedly pointed out in a number of decisions, should be extremely reluctant to interfere in a case where a competent Court has after examining the evidence adduced before it, come to the view that a prima facie case is disclosed and has framed charge or summoned the accused to appear, unless it can be said that the charge on its face or the evidence, even if believed, does not disclose any offence. The High Court must be careful to see that its decision is based on sound general principles of criminal jurisprudence and is not in conflict with them or with the intentions of the legislature as indicated in statutory provisions. Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. does not authoriz the Court to assume any new jurisdiction as jurisdiction has to be given by a statute and cannot be assumed. The High Court, can only interfere when there is any illegality in the registration of the case or no offence is made out, even if, the allegations made in the complaint or F.I.R., are accepted to be true or the case is of no evidence at all and there is no probability of the accused being convicted of the offence. While in the instant case, there is no such circumstance which may warrant interference of this Court at investigation stage. In the instant case, Challan has completed which is to be submitted in the near future. If the prosecution, has no evidence against the petitioners, they may avail the remedy available to them under section 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. whatever, the case may be.

5. For the reasons discussed above, this petition being without any substance, is dismissed. However, the prosecution is directed to submit challan within a week and learned trial Court shall conclude the trial as early as possible, but not later than two months, after receipt of the record. Office is directed to send the record to quarter concerned within two days without fail. HBT/203/P Petition dismissed.