1983 P Cr (PLP)

It has been argued that alternate remedy being available to the applicants namely, the provisions of section 249‑A, Cr. P. C. resort could not be made to the provisions of section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. In P Cr. L J Kar. 981, it was held as under :‑ "

13. Since the applicants have also an alternate remedy available to them under section 249‑A, Cr. P. C. resort to section 561‑A of Cr. P. C. cannot be made. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. is not an alternate jurisdiction or an additional jurisdiction, but is a jurisdiction preserved in the interest of justice to redress grievances, for which no other procedure is available.

14. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that no case for quashment of the proceedings is made out. The application is accordingly dismissed." In 1979 S C M R 94, it was observed as under : ‑ "He has also drawn our attention to the following observation made by this Court in Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan (P L D 1967 S C 317) :‑ The inherent jurisdiction given by section 561‑A is not an alternate jurisdiction or an additional jurisdiction but is a jurisdiction preserved in, the interest of justice to redress grievances for which no others, procedure is available or has been provided by the Code itself. The power given by this section can certainly not be so utilised as to interrupt or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure as laid down in the procedural statute. It has been agreed that an alternative remedy being available to the petitioners, namely the provisions of section 249‑A, Cr. P. C. the resort could not be made to the provisions of section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. There is some force in this submission and we' are inclined to agree with it." Jn P L D 1981 S C 607, it was observed as under "There is another aspect of the matter. There is a remedial provision which has been introduced in the Criminal Procedure Code by Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. It is section 249‑A. It enables an accused facing trial to obtain an order of acquittal from the Magistrate if at any stage the charge is found to be groundless or there is no proba bility of the accused being convicted of any offence. The substance of the claim made by the appellant in the application tinder section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. is exactly the same on which he can claim an acquittal under section 249‑A namely that the charge is groundless and that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence. This is a relief still available to the appellant not in any manner in curtailment of the power possessed by the Court under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. or in derogation of it." In P L D 1982 Pesh. 20, the learned Judge relying on 1979 S C M R 94, observed as under :‑ "Thus, I find that the test laid down for interference in pending criminal proceedings is that if the proceedings are allowed to be continued, it would result in grave miscarriage of justice and there would be no other provision of law by which the aggrieved party would seek relief. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court should not normally be invoked where another remedy is available. The inherent powers ought to be exercised only to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and in order to advance the interest of justice. The High Court may quash proceedings which do not contain any definite or clear accusation or the accusation made does not disclose the com mission of any offence, otherwise the quashment of proceedings at an early stage where no evidence has been recorded would give an impression of stifling of criminal proceedings. If the allegations made in the case do not disclose any offence, it is for the trial Court to weigh the evidence and determine whether the allegations are true or false. The proceedings cannot be quashed simply for the reason that the accused has claimed that the allegations against him are false and fantastic. The test laid down also is that the allegation in the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety could not constitute an offence as alleged. In the circumstances of the instant case, it was submitted that the petitioners should have waited for the commencement of the proceed ings. It was also argued that the provisions of section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. are exceptional and are not meant to be used as a substitute for the provisions regarding other remedy existing in the Code. The extraordinary powers in this section, as far as possible, ought to be reserved for and exercised in real exceptional cases and ought not to be used usually when there is another remedy. On going through the facts of the case, I agree with the learned Assis tant Advocate‑General that this application is premature. The trial Court seized of the matter has vast powers under section 249‑A and 265‑K, Cr. P. C. but these powers should be used judicially. It would apply its mind to the facts of the case and the points if so raised by the defence and thereafter take a decision either to proceed with the case or act according to provisions of the aforesaid two sections." In view of the above position of law, since the applicants have an alternative remedy available to them under section 249‑A, Cr. P. C. resort to section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. cannot be made.

4. Accordingly this application is premature and is dismissed. The record of the case be sent back to the lower Court with the direction to decide it as expeditiously as possible. Application dismissed