Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 2036 2022 SLD 2036 2022 PLJ 1137
Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan
Crl. Misc. No. 611-M of 2021, decision dated: 28.2.2022. hearing date: 28.2.2022.
SOHAIL NASIR, J.
Mr. Tahir Mehmood and Sardar Mehboob Advocates for Petitioner. Mr. Muhammad Khalid Ashraf Khan and Malik Sohail Iqbal Advocates for
Respondent No. 3. Mr. Muhammad Afzal Shahid Advocate for
Respondent No. 4 Mr. Adnan Latif Sheikh Deputy Prosecutor Gener

FAIZ MUHAMMAD

VS

STATE and 3 others

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 145

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 145--Determine the fact of actual physical possession on the relevant date--Question of entitlement of property is beyond the jurisdiction of Magistrate while exercising the powers under section 145 Cr.P.C who is confined to determine the fact of actual physical possession on the relevant date--There must exist not merely apprehension of breach of peace but the same shall emanate from a dispute concerning any land or water or boundaries thereof--Parties are already fighting for their rights in the court of competent jurisdiction from where there will be the ultimate resolution of controversy--Application/complaint u/S. 145, Cr.P.C is hereby dismissed.[Pp. 1140 1141] A, B, C, D, E JUDGMENT Muhammad Younas/Respondent No. 3 (contesting respondent), on 26.02.2015, had filed an application for proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. against Faiz Muhammad (petitioner) and five others. He maintained that he got the land measuring 9-Marlas and 12½ Yards on the basis of a gift deed; he constructed a building comprised of 20 shops by making expenses of Rs. 3.5 millions; he rented out his shops to petitioner @ Rs. 52000/- (fifty two thousands) per months; in 2015 he came to know that petitioner and others having connivance with each other had prepared some forged documents which included the Sale Deeds Nos. 16013 to 16015; on 19.02.2015 petitioner along with 10/15 others being armed with firearms had taken the forcible possession of the property (disputed property) belonging to contesting respondent. He had prayed for possession and sealing the disputed property. 2. Vide an order dated 07.09.2016 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate Multan (SJM) the application was dismissed. Contesting respondent being aggrieved from that order filed a criminal revision which too was dismissed vide an order dated 30.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Multan. Thereafter contesting respondent approached this Court through criminal miscellaneous (6370-M-2017) and with the concurrence of both sides it was allowed vide an order dated 02.11.2020 and the matter was remanded back to the learned trial Court with…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492