MUHAMMAD GULSHAN AND Others vs MUHAMMAD INAYAT AND Another

1. MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.-This is a petition for special leave from the order dated 3rd of August 1977 made by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore dismissing in limine Criminal Miscellaneous No. 407/Q of 1977 filed by the petitioners herein against the respondent for the quashment of the proceedings initiated against them at the instance of the respondent.

2. On the 3rd of August 1975, an F. I. R. Was registered at the Police Station, Dings, District Gujrat, against some of the petitioners named therein and others at the instance of the respondent under section 506/149/447/138, P. P. C. It was alleged that in 1958 the respondent was alleged evacuee land measuring 4 kanals 11 marlas which has continuously remained in his cultivating possession.

3. In spite of this in the year 1974, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner illegally disposed of the land by auction in favour of Muhammad Gulshan petitions: No. 1. The respondent therefore, went up in appeal against the order which was however, dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner.

4. Rawalpindi. On the 30th of September 1975 he filed a writ petition against the transfer of the land to petitioner No I and on the 1st of October 1975, the High Court passed a stay order maintaining the possession of the respondent intact. It is further alleged that in spite of this, on the day of the occurrence on the 3rd of October 1975, at about 11-30 a. m. Soma of the named petitioners along with others in all about 100/150 persons armed with Sotas, trespassed into the land and started raising construction on it. They threatened with the dire consequences and also gave beating with the Sotas to his women-folk. On the basis of the F. I. R. a challan in the case was ale; sent up against the petitioners herein to the Court of the local Magistrate, 1st Class, Kharian under section 506/149/188/ 147/148/324, P. P. C.

5. The petitioners then applied to the High Court under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. Praying for the quashment of the proceedings thus initiated against them on the ground that the averments in the F. I. R. And the challan do not constitute any criminal offence. The plot in dispute was lawfully transferred to petitioner No. 1 by the Settlement Authorities and he had already obtained the possession thereof. As such the stay order issued afterwards by the High Court on the let of October 1975, was of no avail to the respondent. At any rate it was never communicated to any of the petitioners who are therefore not liable for the alleged breaches thereof.

6. But as already stated above on the 3rd of August 1977, a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed the application of the petitioners. He was of the opinion that prima facie the allegations in the F. I. R. And the challan disclose the commission of a criminal offence against them and therefore prosecution could not be stifled at that stage. Whatever their objections could be properly raised by them in defence at their trial.

7. In these circumstances the petitioners have filed this petition for special leave to appeal from the order passed by the High Court refusing to quash the proceedings initiated against them. Before us the learned counsel reiterated that the F.I. R. And the challan put in Court do not disclose any cause of action for the criminal prosecution against them. At any rate according to the learned counsel the dispute between the parties centred around the right to the transfer of the land in dispute and was essentially of a civil nature. It was further stressed before us that the petitioner No. 1, as lawful transferee of the plot in dispute bad already obtained possession thereof even before any stay order was actually issued by the High Court on the 1st of October 1975. At any rate, no intimation of the stay order Issued by the High Court was at all conveyed to petitioner No. 1. Moreover, according to the petitioners their prosecution was mala fide. But none of these contentions has any force. The criminal Court is not concerned with the title to the property. The petitioners are being prosecuted for the offences allegedly committed by them under section 506/149/188/ 447/148324, P. P. C.

8. Calling for the necessary enquiry into them. In the circumstances the High Court was justified in holding that prima facie the allegations in the F. I. R. And the challan disclosed a case for the prosecution of the petitioner which could not be stifled by quashment of the proceedings. There is thus no force in this petition which is dismissed.