Pakistan Case Law
2006 SCMR 969

MUHAMMAD AMEEN vs Master BASHIR AHMED and otherss

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2006 SCMR 969
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Miscellaneous Application No,1902-L of 2002 in Civil Petition No,2016-L
Judge(s)Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, Falak Sher and M. Javed Buttar
Authored byKhalil-Ur-Rehman Ramday
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an order of an Additional Sessions Judge regarding proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner, involved in civil litigation over a house, sought to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. after failing to secure an interim injunction in civil court. The Magistrate initially refused to intervene, citing the pendency of civil proceedings and the absence of a breach of peace. The Supreme Court examined whether criminal proceedings could serve as a substitute for civil litigation to determine property rights. The Court held that criminal proceedings cannot be utilized to secure relief that has been denied by a civil court, particularly when civil rights are the core issue. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of any established apprehension of a breach of peace. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that criminal courts should not be used to bypass civil court determinations or resolve civil disputes.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can criminal proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used as a substitute for civil litigation to determine property rights?
  • Is it permissible for a party to seek relief from a criminal court that has already been denied by a civil court?
  • Does the pendency of civil proceedings regarding the same property preclude the continuation of proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Section 145 CrPCcivil litigationbreach of peaceproperty disputecriminal proceedingsinterim injunction

' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- For reasons stated in the application, C.M.A. No,1902-L of 2002 is allowed and the Civil Petition No,2016-L of 1999 is restored to its original number.

2. The petitioner, who is an Advocate by profession and who appears in person, has no objection to the hearing of this petition today.

3. The petitioner is in litigation with the respondents with respect to a house about which petitioner filed a suit in which he secured an interim injunction which was subsequently recalled. The appeal filed by the petitioner to seek the said relief was dismissed and in the meantime the petitioner initiated proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Before a First Class Magistrate with respect to the same property. The said learned Magistrate took cognizance of the matter and proceeded with the same and ultimately refused to intervene after finding that during the subsistence of the civil proceedings regarding the same house he could not continue for proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Especially when no apprehension of any breach of peace had been established. A learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate which led the present respondents' party to the Lahore High Court with Writ Petition No,11471 of 1995 which petition was allowed as a result whereof the appellate judgment was set aside.

4. Hence this petition.

5. The petitioner has not been able to show any illegality in the impugned judgment of the Lahore High Court. He has not been able to show as to how the criminal proceedings could be permitted to be made a substitute for the civil proceedings in the matter of determination of the civil rights of the parties and how the petitioner could be permitted to secure a relief from a criminal Court which had been denied to him by a Civil Court. It is not denied before us that for the last ten years no untoward incident had taken place between the parties and according to the petitioner even his civil suit had become in fructuous and stood disposed of as such without any decree or judgment in favor of the petitioner.

6. Having thus examined all aspects of the matter, we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. .

Cited by 8 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.