Muhammad Arshad Faheem vs State etc
This criminal revision petition under Section 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged the legality and propriety of an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing a private complaint filed under Section 3, 5, and 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was illegally dispossessed from the residential plot in dispute so as to warrant criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner failed to prove his possession or that of his vendor over the property, whereas police reports and documentary material indicated that another person was the owner in possession and a criminal case for an attempt to illegally occupy the property was registered against the petitioner. Consequently, the High Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the complaint, ruling that no jurisdictional infirmity or perversity existed to warrant interference in revision. The key principle laid down is that a private complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 cannot succeed where the complainant fails to establish settled possession and relies on mere unsubstantiated assertions against police inquiry reports.
- Whether a private complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is maintainable without establishing prior actual possession?
- Can a revisional court interfere with the dismissal of a private complaint in the absence of any jurisdictional infirmity or perversity?
- What is the evidentiary value of a police inquiry report against the mere oral statements of a complainant in proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
- Section 435, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 3, Illegal Dispossession Act 2005
- Section 5, Illegal Dispossession Act 2005
- Section 7, Illegal Dispossession Act 2005
- Section 447, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 511, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this criminal revision under Section 435 & 439, Cr.P.C., petitioner Muhammad Arshad Faheem has challenged the legality and propriety of order dated 13.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Kot Addu District Muzaf fargarh whereby the private complaint titled 'Muhammad Arshad Faheem versus Muhammad Zia Mustafa' filed by the present petitioner under Section 3, 5 & 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was dismissed.
2. The succinct germane facts of the case. are that the petitioner filed the aforesaid private complainant against Respondents No. 2 to 12 (hereinafter called as the respondent) and 7/8 unknown accused with the allegation that on 12.04.2021 at about Agar time, they while armed with batons and clubs, illegally dispossessed his plot measuring 08-Marla situated in Khata No. 516, Khatooni No. 1340 to 1341, Mouza Gujrat Tehsil Kot Addu District Muzaf fargarh. He reported the matter to the local police but the local police joined hands with the accused persons and extended threats to him. Learned trial Court, after obtaining report from the Station House Officer and recording cursory statements of the PWs, proceeded to dismissed the private complaint vide order impugned dated 13.09.2021. Hence, this criminal revision.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the available record.
4. The petitioner claims to have purchased the residential plot in question from one Sadiq Hussain on 29.03.2021 and possession thereof was delivered to him on that very day but the respondents illegally dispossessed him on 12.04.2021 but the report submitted by the Station House Officer before the learned trial Court, speaks otherwise showing that the petitioner had never been in possession of the plot in question rather he tried to illegally occupy the same on 03.05.2021 whereupon a case FIR No. 171/21 dated 04.05.2021 in respect of offence under Section 447, 511, 506 & 34, PPC at Police Station, Mehmood Kot stood registered against him as well as Nazar Hussain (cursory witness No. 2). It was further reported that neither the petitioner (purchaser) nor Sadiq Hussain (seller) had ever possession the plot in question rather one Mst. Mst. Maqsood Fatima was owner in possession of the plot total measuring 66-Marla, which she had leased out to one Hamza Shabbir . Learned trial Court, while dismissed the private complaint, observed that under the disguise of registered sale deed, the complainant wanted to abuse the process of law in order to dispossess the said poor lady. The petitioner remain ed fail to prove not only his own possession but also that of the byer over the plot in dispute. It has been observed that the learned trial Court formed such opinion while relying upon the comprehensive report submitted by the Station House Officer dated 07.05.2021. On the other hand, mere oral statements of the complainant and another witness made before the learned trial Court in support of his private complainant was not substantiated from any other source of oral as well as documentary evidence. In this view of the matter , I have no legitimate except ion to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any jurisdictional infirmity , illegality of approach, irregularity of procedure or perversity of reasoning on part of the learned trial Court to warrant interference by this Court.
5. In view of what has been discussed above, the petition in hand is without any merit, the same stands dismissed in limine.