BARKAT ALI vs S.H.O., POLICE STATION SADAR, KABIRWALA and others
The petitioner sought the quashment of a criminal case registered under Sections 452, 506, 337-H(ii) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a domestic and property dispute concerning a house following the divorce of the petitioner's daughter from the complainant. The core legal question was whether the High Court should interfere and quash the criminal proceedings under its constitutional jurisdiction when a civil dispute regarding property ownership and possession was already pending between the parties before civil courts. The Lahore High Court held that although the factual background indicated a civil dispute, the court was constrained by the binding precedent of the Supreme Court not to interfere at the investigation and pre-trial stage where an incomplete challan had been filed. The court dismissed the petition for quashment, ruling that it was more appropriate for the trial court to examine the controversy, and directed that the petitioner could seek appropriate relief before the trial court.
- Whether the High Court can quash a criminal case when a civil dispute regarding property is pending between the parties?
- Should criminal proceedings be interfered with at the investigation stage prior to the commencement of trial?
- Is it appropriate for the trial court to resolve controversies involving mixed questions of civil and criminal nature?
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' The petitioner prays for quashment of a case registered against him alongwith his son, wife and daughter, vide F.I.R. No,79 of 1996, dated 5-4-1996 under sections 452,, 506, 337-H(ii) and 34; P.P.C.
The admitted position is that Mst. Nasim Mai, daughter of the petitioner was married to Muhammad Ishaque, the complainant of the said F.I.R., who divorced her on 24-12-1995. The dispute pertains to the ownership and possession of a house in the revenue estate of Bilawalpur, Tehsil Kabirwala. According to the petitioner. The house belongs to him, where he was residing with his family and the said complainant was residing alongwith him as his Khana Damad'. After the divorce, the said complainant left the house. The complainant, on the other hand, claims that the house belongs to him and has been illegally occupied by the petitioner and his family. In this background the F.I.R. Has been registered with the allegation that the complainant had agreed to, sell the said house to one Abdul Jabbar and when on the alleged date of occurrence, he went there to deliver the possession of the said house to the vendee, the petitioner and other members of his family mentioned in the F.I.R. Were occupying the house and the petitioner fired shots in the air while shouting that complainant should leave the house.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my attention the certified copy of cross-civil suits pending between the parties. The petitioner has filed a declaratory suit while the said complainant/respondent No,2 has filed a suit for possession in respect of the disputed house.
Learned counsel for the petitioner insists that this is a civil dispute and the case has been registered maliciously and as such ought to be quashed.
3. I have gone through the records brought by the police officer. It appears that an incomplete challan has been filed in Court and trial is to commence. The factual background stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner apparently is borne out on the record, but still I feel under constraint because of the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Shahnaz Begum v.
Honorable Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan PLD 1971 SC 677, which has been consistently followed thereafter to interfere at this stage with the investigation being carried on by the concerned police. It will be more appropriate for the Court conducting the trial to delve into the controversy in question. The petitioner may, therefore, file an application before the learned trail Court for appropriate relief. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
Cited by 1 case
- SHAHNAWAZ JUNEJO vs THE STATE 2001 YLR 197