Mst. RIFAT RANA vs RASHID MEHMOOD and 4 others
This criminal quashment petition was filed by the petitioner to challenge the order of the Sessions Judge, Bannu, which had set aside the Judicial Magistrate's order and dismissed the petitioner's complaint under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. were maintainable in a dispute between co-heirs over immovable property where a civil suit had been previously pending and no specific date of forcible dispossession was mentioned. The Peshawar High Court held that the revisional court rightly set aside the magistrate's order as Section 145 has a limited scope meant solely to avert an immediate breach of the peace and cannot be utilized to settle title disputes, claims of inheritance, or private property rights between siblings, especially when the application lacked a specific date of dispossession. The court laid down the principle that the existence of a dispute regarding immovable property is not per se sufficient to attract Section 145, Cr.P.C., and such summary proceedings cannot substitute for remedies under the Specific Relief Act 1877 or the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005.
- Whether proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are maintainable for resolving title disputes or claims of inheritance between family members?
- Can a complaint under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be sustained when the application fails to disclose the specific date or period of alleged dispossession?
- Whether the High Court can interfere under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 with a revisional order setting aside a magistrate's order under Section 145 where no jurisdictional error is shown?
- Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 9, Specific Relief Act 1877
- Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MUHAMMAD NASIR MAHFOOZ, J.---Through instant quashment petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 09.01.2019 of learned Sessio ns Judge, Bannu, whereby revision petitio n of respondents was accepted and set aside the order dated 22.10.218 of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bannu, consequently complainant of petitioner was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner submitted an application regarding her forcible dispossession by respondents from the house to the District Police Officer, Bannu, who after inquiry submitted complaint under section 145, Cr.P.C. to the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Bannu. The respondents submitted written replication wherein they alleged that civil suit for partition between the parties is pending adjudication, hence, the complaint is not maintainable, while learned trial court held that the complaint is maintainable, as there is apprehension of breach of peace, vide order dated 22.10.2018. The respondents being dissatisfied with the order dated 22.10.2018, preferred revision petition. The learned revisional court, vide impugned order , held that the complaint under section 145, Cr .P.C. was not maintainable. Hence, the instant writ petition.
3. Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner heard in motion and record perused.
4. Perusal of the record reveals that matter in issue was sub judice before the learned Civil Judge-XIII, Bannu in Civil Suit No.412/1 instituted by respondent No.3 on 06.01.2017, but was withdraw n on .28.07.2018. Proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. are meant to avoid breach of peace and in no way amounts to be decided after discussing a title dispute or a dispute of restoration of possession. Provision of section 9 of the Specific Relief Act or Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 are specifically meant to cater for such like eventualities that could not be made redundant. Section 145, Cr.P.C. lays down that complaint is to be represented with proof of dispossession within two months of filing of complaint, but instant application of petitioner submitted to the District Police Officer, Bannu does not reveal any specific date or period, but merely bald allegation of dispossession. Moreover , petitioner and respondents are sisters and brothers inter se and no doubt that former might have claimed to share in disputed property , but the same could not be adjudicated upon under section 145, Cr.P.C. that has got a very limited scope and infringement of private right or dispossession of any of the parties or existence of dispute relating to immovable property is per se not enough to attract provision of section 145, Cr.P.C. It is only meant to meet an emergent situation posing threat to peace and could not be used for settling right of the parties or their claim to title. Import of subsection (5) makes it clear and there is no breach of peace then a Magistrate has got no jurisdiction to make order regarding subject of dispute. Reference in this regard is made to a judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as PLD 1985 Supreme Court 294.
5. The learned revisional court has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and arrived at right conclusion, which order is not open to interference under section 561-A, Cr.PC. This petition being devoid of merits, dismissed in limine.
Cited by 1 case
- Gul Zada vs Hazrat Gul and others 2024 PLD Peshawar 35