ISHTIAQ AHMAD Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF

ORDER

1. Through this petition under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. and 439, Cr.P.C. Ishtiaq Ahmad petitioner wants this Court to quash orders, dated 28‑3‑1988 and 30‑4‑1988 of Magistrate 1st Class, Sadiqabad and order, dated 16‑4‑1988 of Additional Sessions Judge, Rahim Khan.

2. The facts leading to this petition briefly are that on 17‑3‑1988 Muhammad Sharif respondent filed application under section 145, Cr.P.C. before District Magistrate, Rahimyar Khan, giving information that a dispute likely to cause breach of peace concerning Shop No.28 situate at shopping centre Sadiqabad exists between the parties. Learned District Magistrate entrusted the application to Magistrate 1st Class, Sadiqabad for legal action. The Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant. The two witnesses were produced by the complainant in the preliminary inquiry. The learned Magistrate considering the case one of emergency ordered the shop in dispute to be sealed till further orders. Feeling aggrieved of this order Ishtiaq petitioner and two others filed revision before Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan. Before the learned Sessions Judge could decide the revision, the petitioner withdrew it on 16‑4‑1988. The petitioner then moved application under sections 145(5) and 146(1), Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate for the cancellation of order, dated 28‑3‑1988, which was dismissed on 30‑4‑1988, hence this petition.

2. 2‑A. Since in the peculiar circumstances of the case, I do not feel inclined to entertain this petition, so, I need not discuss the merits of the case. I find that Ishtiaq Ahmad petitioner had filed revision against the order, dated 28‑3‑1988, before the learned Sessions Judge Rahimyar Khan. In para. 5 of the petition it has been stated by him that since the points raised in the revision were not appreciated, therefore, he was obliged to withdraw it. I feel that the conduct of the petitioner of withdrawing the revision, dated 28‑3‑1988 from the Court of the learned Sessions Judge for the reasons given by him in para. 5 and then his attempt to achieve the same object by filing this petition under sections 561‑A and 439, Cr.P.C. amounts to an abuse of the process of Court and law as well. As for order, dated 30‑4‑1988 of the learned Magistrate passed subsequent to the withdrawal of the revision against the order, dated 28‑3‑1988, I find that the same could have been challenged before the learned Sessions Judge under section 439, Cr.P.C. and there was no justification to file this application before this Court. Since the remedy of revision against the order, dated 30‑4‑1988 of the Magistrate was available to the petitioner, therefore, I do not desire to exercise the inherent powers of this Court. Strangely enough after having withdrawn the revision, the petitioner wants the order of withdrawal, dated 16‑4‑1988 .of learned Sessions Judge to be quashed.

3. For what has been said above, the petition is dismissed in limine.

4. M.B.A./I‑74/L Petition dismissed.