MUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus STATE

Through this writ petition Muhammad Sadiq petitioner seeks the directions of this Court to D.S.P., Cantt. Gujranwala (respondent No.2) for initiating penal action against S.I. Ghulam Sarwar (respondent No.3) and S.H.O. Malik Abdul Wahid (respondent No.4), both of Police Station Cantt. Gujranwala, for registering false cases against the petitioner and his nephew at the behest of Taj Muhammad (respondent No.5) and Muhammad Nawaz (respondent No.6) against whom he had pending civil litigation in respect of a piece of land.

2. Respondents Nos.3 and 4, in their comments, have taken up the position that there was apprehension of breach of peace between respondents Nos.5 and 6 on the one hand and Muhammad Sadiq on the -other hand on account of a dispute in respect of the land and on the application of respondent No.6 security proceedings were taken against both the parties. They explained that Arif and Abbas, the relations of the petitioner, who were carrying illicit arms for the commission of crime, were apprehended and two cases under the Arms Act were registered against them in routine and not at the behest of respondents Nos.5 and 6. Respondent No.4 further explained that warrant of possession in respect of the disputed property of the parties were executed by the Revenue staff and the possession was handed over to respondents Nos. 5 and 6 but with these proceedings the police had nothing to do.

3. It appears that there has been protracted revenue/civil litigation between the petitioner on the one hand and respondents Nos.5 and 6 on the other in respect of a piece of land and they are now before this Court in Civil Revision No.702 of 1992 and the security proceedings may be its outcome. If respondents Nos.5 and 6 have taken possession of the land pursuant to the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, which is now under challenge in the connected civil revision, the police had apparently nothing to do with it but if this dispute was likely to give rise to the breach of peace, then the police had to perform its duty to prevent it.

4. As regards the registration of the case by the police against Arif and Abbas, the two relations of the petitioner under the Arms Ordinance, 1965, 8 this Court, at this stage, does not consider expedient to intervene or to quash those proceedings.

5. With the above observations the writ petition is disposed of.

N.H.Q./M-1407/L Writ petition dismissed.