Muhammad Ali vs Muhammad Aslam and another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed a criminal revision application challenging an interim order passed by an Additional District Judge under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The trial court had directed the petitioner to hand over possession of a disputed property to the respondent pending the final outcome of a criminal complaint. The petitioner contended that the criminal proceedings were improper because a civil suit regarding the same property had been instituted earlier. The Supreme Court addressed the core question of whether the existence of a civil suit bars criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court held that criminal prosecution is not ipso facto barred by the institution of a civil suit unless the Civil Court has already regulated the possession of the property. Finding the interim order to be interlocutory and not arbitrary or illegal, the Court declined to interfere with the High Court's decision, affirming that such interim arrangements remain subject to the final judgment of the trial court.
- Does the institution of a civil suit regarding a property automatically bar criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
- Under what circumstances does a civil suit preclude criminal prosecution for illegal dispossession?
- Is an interim order for possession passed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, subject to interference by the Supreme Court if it is not arbitrary or illegal?
- Section 3, Illegal Dispossession Act 2005
- Section 4, Illegal Dispossession Act 2005
- Section 7, Illegal Dispossession Act 2005
ORDER
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J. -- On a complaint filed by respondent No, 1, the 1st Additional District Judge, Karachi (Central) vide interim order dated 3.9.2008 under Section 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, directed the petitioner to handover the possession of house No, 545/104, Gharibabad, Bhandani Colony, Karachi, to respondent No, 1 on or before 16.9.2008. Therefore, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Application No, 104/2008 which was dismissed by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, by the impugned order dated 1.12.2008.
2. The learned counsel vehemently argued that ,the petitioner had already filed a civil suit qua the disputed property on 31.5.2007. Thereafter, the respondent resorted to file a criminal complaint under the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, although it was not a case of un-authorized or illegal possession of the house in question, It was lastly submitted that the petitioner was yet to cross-examine the complainant/respondent in the criminal case.
3. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General Sindh, as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No, 1 submitted that the order dated 3.9.2008 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Karachi (Central), was by way of interim arrangement which would depend on the final order/judgment to be-passed by the Trial Court in due course of time. They further stated that the Trial Court had already taken the cognizance of the offence against the petitioner and had also partly recorded the prosecution evidence in the case.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Advocate General Sindh at some length and have also perused the available record with their able assistance, In our view, the criminal prosecution, ipso facto, is not barred by the institution of a civil suit unless the Civil Court is found to have already regulated the possession of the property in dispute. The interim order, being interlocutory in nature, passed by the Trial Court, will, be subject to the final orders.
Such-like orders do not call for interference unless these are arbitrary and illegal or where the discretion is improperly exercised.
5. The impugned order of the High Court was not shown to be suffering from any illegality or arbitrariness. We would not like to interfere at this stage of proceedings, lt is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
' For the forgoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is declined.