PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 177
Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 (XI of 2005)--
----Ss. 3, 5 & 7--Private complaint--Summoning order--Report submitted by the SHO before the learned trial Court, speaks otherwise showing that the petitioner had never been in possession of the plot in question rather he tried to illegally occupy the same--Trial Court observed that under the disguise of registered sale deed, the complainant wanted to abuse the process of law in order to dispossess the said poor lady--Petitioner remained fail to prove not only his own possession--Mere oral statements of the complainant and another witness made before the trial Court in support of his private complainant was not substantiated.
[Pp. 177 & 178] A, B, C & D
Mr. Muhammad Qadir Asif Toor, Advocate for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 28.9.2021.
PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 177
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Asjad Javid Ghural, J.
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD FAHEEM--Petitioner
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. Rev. No. 256 of 2021, decided on 28.9.2021.
Order
Through this criminal revision under Section 435 & 439, Cr.P.C., petitioner Muhammad Arshad Faheem has challenged the legality and propriety of order dated 13.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Kot Addu District Muzaffargarh whereby the private complaint titled 'Muhammad Arshad Faheem versus Muhammad Zia Mustafa’ filed by the present petitioner under Section 3, 5 & 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was dismissed.
2. The succinct germane facts of the case are that the petitioner filed the aforesaid private complainant against Respondents No. 2 to 12 (hereinafter called as the respondent) and 7/8 unknown accused with the allegation that on 12.04.2021 at about Asar time, they while armed with batons and clubs, illegally dispossessed his plot measuring 08-Marla situated in Khata No. 516, Khatooni No. 1340 to 1341, Mouza Gujrat Tehsil Kot Addu District Muzaffargarh. He reported the matter to the local police but the local police joined hands with the accused persons and extended threats to him. Learned trial Court, after obtaining report from the Station House Officer and recording cursory statements of the PWs, proceeded to dismissed the private complaint vide order impugned dated 13.09.2021. Hence, this criminal revision.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the available record.
4. The petitioner claims to have purchased the residential plot in question from one Sadiq Hussain on 29.03.2021 and possession thereof was delivered to him on that very day but the respondents illegally dispossessed him on 12.04.2021 but the report submitted by the Station House Officer before the learned trial Court, speaks otherwise showing that the petitioner had never been in possession of the plot in question rather he tried to illegally occupy the same on 03.05.2021 whereupon a case FIR No. 171/21 dated 04.05.2021 in respect of offence under Section 447, 511, 506 & 34, PPC at Police Station, Mehmood Kot stood registered against him as well as Nazar Hussain (cursory witness No. 2). It was further reported that neither the petitioner (purchaser) nor Sadiq Hussain (seller) had ever possession the plot in question rather one Mst. Mst. Maqsood Fatima was owner in possession of the plot total measuring 66-Marla, which she had leased out to one Hamza Shabbir. Learned trial Court, while dismissed the private complaint, observed that under the disguise of registered sale deed, the complainant wanted to abuse the process of law in order to dispossess the said poor lady. The petitioner remained fail to prove not only his own possession but also that of the byer over the plot in dispute. It has been observed that the learned trial Court formed such opinion while relying upon the comprehensive report submitted by the Station House Officer dated 07.05.2021. On the other hand, mere oral statements of the complainant and another witness made before the learned trial Court in support of his private complainant was not substantiated from any other source of oral as well as documentary evidence. In this view of the matter, I have no legitimate exception to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any jurisdictional infirmity, illegality of approach, irregularity of procedure or perversity of reasoning on part of the learned trial Court to warrant interference by this Court.
5. In view of what has been discussed above, the petition in hand is without any merit, the same stands dismissed in limine.
(K.Q.B.) Revision dismissed
0 Comments