ABDUL RAZAQUE vs INVESTIGATING OFFICER OF CRIME NO.185 OF 2012, POLICE
The applicant assailed an order passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate accepting a police summary report under 'B' class regarding an FIR registered under the directions of the Additional Sessions Judge following an alleged house trespass, theft, and issuance of threats. The applicant contended that the report was false, witness statements were ignored, and no directions were issued concerning his dispossession. Conversely, the State argued that possession of the subject property had already been restored to the complainant (Allah Bux) pursuant to an order passed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, rendering the criminal allegations false and unsubstantiated. The Sindh High Court held that the impugned order was a detailed and speaking order covering all factual and legal aspects, and that no sufficient evidence of a cognizable offence existed against the respondents, noting that any grievance regarding dispossession from a different property could be pursued through the appropriate forum. The criminal miscellaneous application was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether a Magistrate's order accepting a police summary report under 'B' class is maintainable when supported by reasons?
- Does the execution of an order for restoration of possession under the Illegal Dispossession Act negate criminal proceedings arising from the same dispute?
- What is the appropriate remedy when a party claims dispossession from a property different from the one addressed in restoration proceedings?
- Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 3, Illegal Dispossession Act 2005
- Section 4, Illegal Dispossession Act 2005
- Section 7, Illegal Dispossession Act 2005
ORDER
' SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J.--The applicant Abdul Razzak has assailed the order dated 4-10-2012, passed by learned Ist.Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Kandiaro, whereby the Summary Report under "B" class was accepted.
2. The relevant facts in nut-shell are that on 17-8-2012 at about 2:30 p.m. That accused Pirano Khan Keerio, Muhammad Daud Larik, Ghous Bux Siyal, Allah Bux, Hadi Bux, Wahid Bux, Nusrat Hussain, all having Danda and hatchets, Muhammad Nazir Rind, Akram Ghanghro armed with Pistols, intruded in the house of applicant broken the house hold articles, took away cash of Rs,60000, one Ceiling Fan, One Pedestal Fan, Two Boxes, filled with articles, One hand pumb, 12 Bedding/Bistra, Three wooden doors, Twenty Wooden Boxes and four wooden Guarder from the house and issued threats of murder to them, the complainant Abdul Razzak filed an application under sections 22-A and 22- B, Cr.P.C. Before the Court and under the directions of Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro vide order dated 5-9-2012, FIR was lodged at Police Station, Kandiaro on 5-9-2012 at 2000 hours by the complainant. The police after usual investigation submitted final report disposing of case in "B" class.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant inter alia contends that the impugned order is illegal and not maintainable under the Law; no statement of P.Ws. Were recorded in spite of that false report under "B" class was submitted by the Investigating Officer; directions were not issued in respect of property, where from the applicant has been dispossessed.
4. Conversely Mr. Mohan Lal Ladhani, D.D.P.P has argued that pursuant to order dated 10-8-2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro on the application under section 7(1) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, wherein directions were issued to the Mukhtiarkar to restore the possession to the complainant, they have complied with the order, therefore, the allegations of commission of criminal offence are false and ingredients of sections of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 are not applicable in the instant case as they have not committed any offence.
5. Heard counsel and perused the record.
6. From the perusal of papers available on record, it is an admitted position that one Allah Bakhsh had filed an application under sections 3 and 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 before the Sessions Judge, Naushahro Feroze, the same was entrusted to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro. During adjudication an application under section 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was filed and directions were issued to concerned Mukhtiarkar for handing over the possession of the subject-matter property to the complainant, it will be conducive to reproduce the relevant portion of the referred (idem) order dated 10-8-2012, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro:- "The Mulchtiarkar is further directed that if he feels any incovenience for securing the possession then he can obtain police assistance in exercise of his powers and sent a requisition to the officer- in-charge concerned and the officer-in charge is also directed to render such assistance to the Mukhtiarkar, when necessity arises."
7. Since it is matter of record that in pursuance of order dated 10-8-2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, respondents have restored the possession of subject matter property to one Allah Bux the complainant in Complaint No, 151 of 2012 (Re-Allah Bux v. Abdul Karim and others), investigation was carried out; report under false class was submitted before the concerned Magistrate. It is suffice to say that impugned order is very detailed, covering all aspects, factual and legal, thus it can be treated as speaking order and counsel for the applicant failed to point out any infirmity and illegality in the impugned order; prima facie no sufficient evidence is available against the respondent regarding any cognizable offence committed by them in instant case.
8. Regarding the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant that in fact the subject- matter property was different, but Mukhtiarkar and his staff has dispossessed him from another property and in that regard the applicant has remedy to approach the concerned court for redressal of his grievance.
9. Insofar the impugned order is speaking order, and no infirmity or illegality has been surfaced, thus this application is devoid of any merits, which is dismissed.
' Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,S-644 of 2012 is disposed of.