Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--
---S.448--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.435--G, occupying apartment of a College trying to retain premises in his possession even after termination of his service--Apartment taken possession of by College authorities--G lodging complaint under S.448, P.P.C. and summons issued by Magistrate---Revision in High Court against order of Magistrate--Held: G at most was a mere licensee trying to retain possession of apartment as a matter of prestige; no prima facie case made out against College authorities to summon petitioners under S.448, P.P.C.--Impugned order of summons by Magistrate, held, not maintainable and set aside by High Court in revision.
Sh. Zia Ullah for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 2nd June, 1987.
Dr. ANWAR M. BARKAT VS GULZAR WAFA CHAUDHRY1987 M L D 2204[Lahore]Before Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, Actg. C JDr. ANWAR M. BARKAT and 2 others--PetitionersVersusGULZAR WAFA CHAUDHRY and another-- RespondentssCriminal Revision No.305 of 1974,hearrl on 2nd June, 1987.
---S.448--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.435--G, occupying apartment of a College trying to retain premises in his possession even after termination of his service--Apartment taken possession of by College authorities--G lodging complaint under S.448, P.P.C. and summons issued by Magistrate---Revision in High Court against order of Magistrate--Held: G at most was a mere licensee trying to retain possession of apartment as a matter of prestige; no prima facie case made out against College authorities to summon petitioners under S.448, P.P.C.--Impugned order of summons by Magistrate, held, not maintainable and set aside by High Court in revision.
Sh. Zia Ullah for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 2nd June, 1987.
JUDGMENT
On 24th of November, 1973, Gulzar Wafa Chaudhry, a Lecturer in Urdu, Dayal Singh College, Lahore, filed a complaint under sections 448/454 and 380, PPC, read with section 34 of the PPC, against Anwar Barkat son of Barkat Masih, resident and employee of F.C College, Lahore, Meer Yaqoob, employee, F.C. College and resident of the Newton Hall of the College and Victor Izraya, employee of F.C. College and resident of 26-F.C. College.
The complainant stated that prior to coming to Dayal Singh College he was Lecturer in Urdu in F.C. College and resided in the said College. He was given permission by the Board of Directors of the F . C . College to live in apartment No.4, North Hall, F . C . College.
On 16-11-1973 at 11/12 A.M., when he was on duty in Dayal Singh College, in his absence the aforesaid persons alongwith their companions, who were unknown to the complainant, but could be identified by the witnesses, in the presence of Javaid Nasim Bhatti s/o B.S. Nasim Bhatti and Moazzam Iqbal son of Chaudhry J. Jan, pupils of the complainant and who had come to see him, trespassed into his apartment and took away all his belongings. Javaid Nasim and Moazzam Iqbal went to Dayal Singh College and informed the complainant of the incident. The complainant came to the F.C. College and found the chain of the door broken. The door was closed with wooden fitting.
The complainant enquired about his belongings. He was told that the accused had removed those to some unknown place.
The complainant went to the Police. Nobody listened to his grievance. He, therefore, filed the complaint. The complainant attached list of the articles, alleged to have been stolen from the apartment by the accused.
The Magistrate who took cognizance of the complaint recorded preliminary evidence comprising the statements of Moazzam Iqbal and Javaid Nasim Bhatti as well as of the complainant. Thereafter, on 29-1-1974, on the basis of the preliminary evidence, summoned the accused under section 448, PPC. The aforesaid order has been impugned by the accused-petitioners.
In the revision, Dr.Anwar, who was mentioned as an employee in the complaint, disclosed his status as Principal of the F.C. College. Meer Mohammad Yaqoob, who was also shown as an employee of the College is a Professor and Head of Mathematics Department and the third accused, Mr.Victor, is Registrar and Lecturer of the F. C. College.
The revision was admitted to regular hearing on 7-5-1974. The record was also sent for. Thereafter, it was listed on 5-5-1975, because Cr. Misc.2/75 had been moved for early hearing and disposal of the revision petition. This application was dismissed by the then Chief Justice. Nothing happened from 1975 till 1987. Ultimately on 9-5-1987, the case came up before me. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that 13 years had elapsed. He had no instructions from his clients. He requested for time to look into the matter. Three weeks' adjournment was allowed. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent. Registered A.D. notice was issued for today on 17-5-1987. None has turned up from his side.
The complaint, as already observed, was filed in the year 1973. The impugned order was passed on 29-1-1974. It so appears that the respondent has lost interest in the matter and his sole purpose was just to drag the petitioners into litigation by compelling them to appear before a Criminal Court in their capacity as accused persons.
The fact that the complainant did not disclose the status of the accused is enough proof of his mala fide. I am not prepared to believe that the complainant himself being a Lecturer would not know the particulars of the three petitioners.
Even on merits I don't think that a case is made out under section 448, PPC either in the complaint or on the preliminary evidence produced by the respondent. The dispute pertains to an apartment and the counsel for the petitioners rightly contended that the respondent et the best could be treated as a licensee while he was in the employment of the F.C. College; when he got job in Dayal Singh College, he had no right, whatsoever, to retain the premises. It so appears that the respondent wanted to retain possession of the apartment and had made it a matter of prestige.
I don't think any prima facie case was made out to summon the petitioners under section 448 PPC. The impugned order as such is not legally maintainable. The same is hereby sat aside.
The revision petition is accepted.
K.B.A./A-152/LPetition accepted.
On 24th of November, 1973, Gulzar Wafa Chaudhry, a Lecturer in Urdu, Dayal Singh College, Lahore, filed a complaint under sections 448/454 and 380, PPC, read with section 34 of the PPC, against Anwar Barkat son of Barkat Masih, resident and employee of F.C College, Lahore, Meer Yaqoob, employee, F.C. College and resident of the Newton Hall of the College and Victor Izraya, employee of F.C. College and resident of 26-F.C. College.
The complainant stated that prior to coming to Dayal Singh College he was Lecturer in Urdu in F.C. College and resided in the said College. He was given permission by the Board of Directors of the F . C . College to live in apartment No.4, North Hall, F . C . College.
On 16-11-1973 at 11/12 A.M., when he was on duty in Dayal Singh College, in his absence the aforesaid persons alongwith their companions, who were unknown to the complainant, but could be identified by the witnesses, in the presence of Javaid Nasim Bhatti s/o B.S. Nasim Bhatti and Moazzam Iqbal son of Chaudhry J. Jan, pupils of the complainant and who had come to see him, trespassed into his apartment and took away all his belongings. Javaid Nasim and Moazzam Iqbal went to Dayal Singh College and informed the complainant of the incident. The complainant came to the F.C. College and found the chain of the door broken. The door was closed with wooden fitting.
The complainant enquired about his belongings. He was told that the accused had removed those to some unknown place.
The complainant went to the Police. Nobody listened to his grievance. He, therefore, filed the complaint. The complainant attached list of the articles, alleged to have been stolen from the apartment by the accused.
The Magistrate who took cognizance of the complaint recorded preliminary evidence comprising the statements of Moazzam Iqbal and Javaid Nasim Bhatti as well as of the complainant. Thereafter, on 29-1-1974, on the basis of the preliminary evidence, summoned the accused under section 448, PPC. The aforesaid order has been impugned by the accused-petitioners.
In the revision, Dr.Anwar, who was mentioned as an employee in the complaint, disclosed his status as Principal of the F.C. College. Meer Mohammad Yaqoob, who was also shown as an employee of the College is a Professor and Head of Mathematics Department and the third accused, Mr.Victor, is Registrar and Lecturer of the F. C. College.
The revision was admitted to regular hearing on 7-5-1974. The record was also sent for. Thereafter, it was listed on 5-5-1975, because Cr. Misc.2/75 had been moved for early hearing and disposal of the revision petition. This application was dismissed by the then Chief Justice. Nothing happened from 1975 till 1987. Ultimately on 9-5-1987, the case came up before me. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that 13 years had elapsed. He had no instructions from his clients. He requested for time to look into the matter. Three weeks' adjournment was allowed. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent. Registered A.D. notice was issued for today on 17-5-1987. None has turned up from his side.
The complaint, as already observed, was filed in the year 1973. The impugned order was passed on 29-1-1974. It so appears that the respondent has lost interest in the matter and his sole purpose was just to drag the petitioners into litigation by compelling them to appear before a Criminal Court in their capacity as accused persons.
The fact that the complainant did not disclose the status of the accused is enough proof of his mala fide. I am not prepared to believe that the complainant himself being a Lecturer would not know the particulars of the three petitioners.
Even on merits I don't think that a case is made out under section 448, PPC either in the complaint or on the preliminary evidence produced by the respondent. The dispute pertains to an apartment and the counsel for the petitioners rightly contended that the respondent et the best could be treated as a licensee while he was in the employment of the F.C. College; when he got job in Dayal Singh College, he had no right, whatsoever, to retain the premises. It so appears that the respondent wanted to retain possession of the apartment and had made it a matter of prestige.
I don't think any prima facie case was made out to summon the petitioners under section 448 PPC. The impugned order as such is not legally maintainable. The same is hereby sat aside.
The revision petition is accepted.
K.B.A./A-152/LPetition accepted.
0 Comments