MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs NABI BAKHSH and 8 others
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the police to register a criminal case against the respondents, alleging that they fraudulently obtained a property mutation to the exclusion of rightful legal heirs. The core legal question was whether the alleged misstatement and fraudulent mutation constituted a cognizable offence warranting police intervention under the writ jurisdiction. The Court held that the matter was already pending before the Revenue Authorities, who had already cancelled the impugned mutation, and that a civil suit was concurrently pending to determine the rightful heirs and their respective shares. Consequently, the Court found that no cognizable offence was made out from the alleged misstatement, particularly as the error had been rectified. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, establishing the principle that where a dispute regarding inheritance and property mutation is already subject to adjudication before competent revenue and civil forums, the High Court will not exercise its writ jurisdiction to direct the registration of a criminal case for the same underlying grievance.
- Can the High Court direct the registration of a criminal case when a property dispute is already pending before revenue and civil courts?
- Does an alleged misstatement in a mutation proceeding, which has been rectified, constitute a cognizable offence requiring police registration?
- Is a writ petition maintainable for the registration of a criminal case when alternative civil and revenue remedies are being pursued?
ORDER
' Muhammad Iqbal petitioner has submitted that he alongwith his other brothers and sisters are entitled to the property of Meraj Bibi and also Ghulam Muhammad. However, respondent No,1 who was also related to the deceased in connivance with other heirs got the property mutated through Mutation No,407 in their names to the exclusion of the legal heirs. The matter was brought to the notice of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons.), Sargodha who vide his order, dated 22-6- 2000 cancelled the mutation and ordered the Consolidation Officer to hear the parties, determine as to who are the heirs and then enter/sanction a fresh mutation. A civil suit has also been filed by the respondents as it has become apparent from the contents of the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons.), Sargodha.
2. Learned counsel through the instant writ petition states that oral statement was made by the respondents whereby the petitioner and others were deprived of their share and as such it is contended that a criminal case is made out for which the concerned Police Officer be directed to register a case.
3. I cannot subscribe to the arguments raised by the learned counsel. The matter is before the Revenue Authorities where partial relief has been allowed to the petitioner. A civil suit is also pending in which the heirs have to be ascertained and then their shares have to be apportioned.
According to the so-called misstatement, which, too stands rectified no cognizable offence is made out to call for interference or direction to concerned S.H.O. Dismissed in limine.