HAKIM ALI Versus NAWAB DIN

The petitioners seek quashment of proceedings in a private complaint filed by Nawab Din, respondent No.1 for offence under section 17 of Ordinance VI of 1979, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali. The petitioners were summoned by the Court and are charged for offence under section 17 of Ordinance, VI of 1979 as well as section 4/34, P.P.C. The charges were framed on 15-3-1990.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that land measuring 120 Kanals situated in Chak No.30/D.B., Tehsil and District Mianwali was allotted to Lal Din in the year 1949. He remained in cultivating possession of the same till the year 1970. In the year 1970, Lal Din appointed Nawab Din, respondent as his special attorney and had allowed him to manage the property till the year 1982. Nawab was shown to be an unauthorised occupant of the land. On 20th of March, 1982 Nawab was evicted from the land and Ghulam Oadir son of Lal Din, deceased, was put in possession. He got it cultivated through tenants. In the year 1985, Nawab, respondent attempted to occupy the land again. Whereupon proceedings under section 145 were initiated against him at the instance of Ghulam Qadir. The matter was decided on 6-1-1985 in favour of the petitioner. Ghulam Qadir, respondent No.1 filed appeal against the said order which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order, dated 23-1-1985. Thereafter, Ghulam Qadir, appointed Hakam Ali as his general attorney on 28-2-1989. Nawab Din again tried to interfere in the petitioner's possession. Whereupon proceedings under section 145 were drawn up by the police against both the parties. The property was ordered to be attached by the Assistant Commissioner on 12-2-1989. Nawab, respondent No.1 filed appeal against order, dated 12-2-1989 which was party allowed on 27-3-1989. The Court was pleased to order that a Sapurdar be appointed, in respect of the standing crops. Therefore, the present petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against Nawab Din respondent and obtained status quo order on 1-4-1989. The said order was confirmed on 8-4-1989. Nawab Din, respondent No.1 filed appeal against the said order which was dismissed on 29 4-1989. Thereafter, the A.C. dropped the proceedings under section 145 of the Cr.P.C. vide his order, dated 4-4-1989. Against the said order of the A.C. Nawab Din filed a' revision petition which was allowed by. the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 1-8-1989. It was ordered that the possession of the land be delivered to Nawab Din. The petitioners challenged the order dated 1-8-1989 through Writ Petition No.4721 of 1989, which came up for hearing on 6-8-1989 in the early hours of the day and it was ordered "Status quo as to possession be maintained". However, on the same day physical possession of the land was handed over to Nawab Din. Possession of the land was ordered to be restored to the petitioner vide order dated 28-8-1989 passed in the above-referred writ petition which was finally executed vide order, dated 11-11-1992.

3. The petitioner's learned counsel submits that Nawab Din was in possession of the disputed land on 13-6-1989 when he filed a private complaint alleging therein that the petitioner and his partymen had forcibly entered the land and had taken away crops worth Rs.30,000. The learned counsel submits that there is no possibility of the petitioner's conviction and that the criminal proceedings in the matter would be an exercise in futility. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the land was actually cultivated by Bhag Ali etc. the tenants and the question as to who was actually in possession at the relevant time can be established after recording evidence of the parties.

4. The learned counsel for Nawab Din, respondent No.1 has also been heard. He has no serious objection if the criminal proceedings are quashed and the parties allowed to have their title settled through Civil Court.

5. The record shows that the petitioner had obtained the status quo order regarding his possession over the disputed land on 1-4-1989. Thereafter the status quo -order was confirmed by the trial Court on 8-4-1989 Respondent's appeal was dismissed on 29-4-1989. It was mentioned in the last para of the said order that Ghulam Qadir son of Lal Din was in possession of the land. There is nothing to show that thereafter he was evicted through any legal process. The learned counsel submits that on 3-5-1989 when the petitioner had allegedly entered the land and taken away the crops belonging to Nawab Din; the petitioner was in possession of the land and there was no i question of his forcible entry into the land.

6. Therefore, this petition is accepted. The criminal proceedings in the case captioned, "Nawab Din v. Hakim Ali" pending in the Court of Hafeez-ul -Hassan, Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, are quashed.

N.H.Q./H-118/L

Proceedings quashed.