MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others vs ABDUL BARI and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which had set aside the decisions of a Magistrate and an Additional Sessions Judge regarding proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Magistrate had initially dismissed the police complaint, finding no imminent breach of peace concerning the disputed land, a conclusion affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court, exercising its constitutional jurisdiction, interfered with these concurrent findings and directed the Magistrate to proceed with the matter on its merits. The petitioners contend that the High Court's interference was improper given the existing civil litigation between the parties regarding the title of the land and the concurrent findings of the lower courts that no imminent breach of peace existed. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction in setting aside the orders of the lower courts under the circumstances where civil proceedings were already pending and no imminent breach of peace was established.
- Can the High Court interfere in proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when lower courts have concurrently found no imminent breach of peace?
- Is the existence of a pending civil suit relevant to the initiation or continuation of proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 107, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 151, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J. ---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of Peshawar High Court dated 17-1-1993.
2. The facts in brief are that the local police made a report to the learned Magistrate for proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate summoned both the parties but on the basis of the material placed before him dismissed the complaint filed by the police. It may be noted that the private respondents did not make any complaint to the local Magistrate. The respondents challenged the order of the learned Magistrate in revision. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition confirming the order of the learned Magistrate. The respondents then challenged these orders in Constitution petition before the High Court. The learned High Court accepted the petition and set aside orders of the Courts below and directed the Magistrate to proceed with the matter and decide the case on merit.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a civil suit had already been filed and is pending adjudication in the Civil Court and there is positive finding by the learned Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge that there was no imminent breach of peace concerning the land in dispute. The High Court should have not interfered in his extraordinary jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate in his tentative observation stated that respondents were neither owners nor in possession of the disputed land. Therefore, there was no case of imminent breach of peace between the parties. The parties had already been bound down under section 107/151, Cr.P.C. The respondents had themselves approached the Civil Court claiming the title of the suit land.
' In view of the above facts leave is granted to consider whether the High Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in this matter.
Cited by 2 cases
- Mst. NASIM AKHTAR vs THE STATE and others 1996 P Cr. L J 560
- Mst. NASIM AKHTAR vs THE STATE, Etc. K.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 11