FAZAL AMIN vs MIR REHMAN & another
This criminal matter arises from a quashment petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging an appellate order that remanded a Section 145 Cr.P.C. complaint for a decision on merits. The core legal question was whether a complaint under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be dismissed in limine solely because the complainant is an absconder. The Peshawar High Court held that proceedings under Section 145 are semi-civil in nature and primarily aimed at preventing a breach of the peace over land or water disputes, meaning the physical presence of a formal complainant is not strictly demanded as the Magistrate may act upon police reports or other information. The Court affirmed that technicalities relating to complaints are secondary to preventing societal clashes and upheld the remand order, dismissing the petition in limine. The key principle laid down is that the primary object of Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is to maintain public peace regarding property disputes, allowing proceedings to continue regardless of the formal complainant's status as an absconder.
- Whether proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 demand the personal presence of a formal complainant?
- Can a complaint under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be dismissed solely on the ground that the complainant is an absconder?
- What is the primary object of proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 145(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 145(4), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
The complaint of Mir Amin respondent against Fazal Amin petitioner under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was dismissed at initial stage by the Judicial Magistrate, Swabi on 24.09.2008 on the main ground that the complainant was since absconder, he could not get relief from a Court of law. In revision, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Swabi held in his judgment dated 20.11.2008 that it is clearly mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 145 Cr.P.C. that in the aforesaid proceedings the parties concerned can appear in person or by pleader. Since these are semi civil proceedings, the complaint could not be dismissed and by setting aside the order of the Magistrate, he remanded the case for decision on merits.
2. Petitioner Fazal Amin got aggrieved by the order of revisional Court and he has challenged the same through this quashment petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C.
3. I have heard Mr. Jan Muhammad Khan, Advocate, for the petitioner at length. Record has been consulted.
4. The plain reading of Section 145 Cr.P.C. would clarify that proceedings under this section do not always demand the presence of a complaint and existence of a formal complainant. The primary object of Section 145 Cr.P.C. is "to prevent breach of peace because of a dispute over land or water."
Needless to mention that the word 'land' includes movable property too. The Magistrate can take action on the basis of complaint by a person, report of police or any other information received by him from any source. The inquiry under sub-section (4) of Section 145 Cr.P.C. is with the object to safeguard the possession of the person under threat, or to put in possession the person who has been dispossessed of the property within two months prior to the dispute or attach the same if possession of none of the parties over the disputed property could be ascertained. All this is a legal arrangement to temporarily save the society from criminal clashes and apprehended losses, which can extend to the formidable loss of human lives.
5. Since the prime object of the whole proceedings is to thwart breach of peace, the technicalities relating to complaints and the complainants are of secondary importance. The paramount significance is of apt action of Magistrate, at appropriate time, to shield the breach of peace.
Therefore, the revisional Court has rightly remanded the case to the concerned Magistrate to pass a proper order on merits fully paying attention towards the likelihood of breach of peace which, if not property paid attention, may result in armed clashes and irreparbie losses.
6. The impugned order is not suffering from any illegality, material irregularity or any jurisdictional defect. Hence, no force is seen in this petition, which is dismissed in limine.