MUHAMMAD HAMEED vs KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which sought the quashment of proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner argued that because a civil suit for possession through pre-emption was pending regarding the disputed land, the criminal proceedings under Section 145 were incompetent. The petitioner further contended that the criminal court's attachment order was legally unjustified given the prior civil litigation and the nature of Section 145 proceedings, which are intended to maintain peace. The Supreme Court examined the circumstances, noting that the criminal proceedings were initiated to address potential breaches of peace. Finding no infirmity in the High Court's order and no legal basis to declare the Section 145 proceedings incompetent merely due to the existence of a civil suit, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The holding affirms that the pendency of a civil suit does not automatically render Section 145 proceedings incompetent.
- Does the pendency of a civil suit for pre-emption render proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 incompetent?
- Can a criminal court initiate proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while civil litigation regarding the same property is ongoing?
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 114, Punjab Tenancy Act 1887
ORDER
' MIAN BURHANUDD1N KHAN, J.-By this petition leave is sought to appeal against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 16-5-1983 whereby petition filed under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. For quashment of proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. Was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a suit for possession through pre-emption was filed prior to the institution of an application under section 145, Cr. P. C. And therefore, recourse to a Criminal Court under section 145, Cr. P. C. Was incompetent and the impugned order is without legal justification ; that the order of attachment was passed by the Criminal Court, subsequent to the order of Civil Judge sought by the respondent, was in itself an admission that the land was in possession of the petitioner ; that proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. Are founded on the principle of maintaining peace and order in case of imminent danger of breach of peace.
3. According to the facts mentioned in the petition the petitioner purchased Mauroosi rights in an area measuring 90 Kanals and 9 Marlas in Mauza Mood Dakhli, lrriani, Tehsil Murree from one Mahboob Hussain vide Mutation No, 870 dated 11-8-1972. On 25-5-1971, the petitioner, according to him, deposited the amount of Malikana as required by section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and as a result thereof he was conferred with the proprietary rights in the said land. On 10.8-1973 one Bari Sher brought a civil suit against the petitioner for possession of the land in dispute, through pre- emption. This suit was dismissed on 8-1-1976 but earlier, during the pendency of this, suit, the learned Civil Judge had passed an interim order to the effect that the defendants in the suit were restrained from making any construction. Later on respondent filed an application under section 145, Cr. P. C. In respect of the land in question in the Court of the Resident Magistrate who vide order date 28-8-1973 attached the property and stopped the parties from interfering in the said property.
4. The learned counsel now appearing before us could not point out any infirmity in the order of the learned High Court Judge, nor he could show that proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. We're not competent. Hence, we find no merit in this petition which is, accordingly, dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- HAJI MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus THE STATE AND 3 OTHERS 1988 PCRLJ 2268
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN And ANOTHER vs THE STATE and another 1986 P C r. L J 1198